Bitbucket Reviews

We use Bitbucket to manage source code and control the version.

The tool helps us manage different versions of code and branches. I like that Bitbucket is similar to Git but may have some vendor support. It has many of the same features as Git.

One helpful feature is that we can do many things directly in the browser, like creating pull requests or editing code, without needing Git commands. Bitbucket integrates well with other tools like Jira. When we raise a pull request in Bitbucket, it can create a change request in ServiceNow automatically. We first create a Jira ticket and tag its number in Bitbucket.

The solution integrates with DevOps tools like TeamCity, Travis, Jenkins, and Nexus repository. We use a branching model with a master branch and other branches for development and testing. Developers modify code in the dev environment; after testing, we implement it in production.

The online documentation isn't sufficient for configuration at an enterprise level. If new issues arise, vendor support may be necessary.

I have been using the product for two years. 

Sometimes, the Bitbucket server goes down, but it's rare. A specific team handles these issues and brings the server back up.

The solution is good enough for our current needs. The underlying hardware needs to support scaling it up vertically. Whether in the cloud or on servers with VMs, the basic requirements for Bitbucket need to be met to scale it up.

I'm unsure of the exact number of users, but it might be in the thousands. the tool handles production and development issues across multiple applications and DevOps tools.

For setup, the solution is hosted on a Linux server, similar to Git. In our environment, we install it on a server and host it on a URL. The deployment process is straightforward, with recommended steps available in documentation.

There are multiple ways to set up Bitbucket. It's not just standalone mode. We can set it up on multiple servers, not only Linux or Windows but even in the cloud. That's the current trend.

Maintaining Bitbucket isn't difficult, but engineers need clear knowledge about it to maintain it properly.

The tool has some better features than Git, though I'm not sure if it has vendor support. We currently use it in QA.

I would recommend Bitbucket to others. If it has vendor support, it can be used for production environments.

Overall, I'd rate it seven out of ten. Sometimes, the system might go down due to underlying server issues or other problems. To handle this, the underlying solution should be highly available.

We use Bitbucket to store all of our code repositories. It has become the standardized tool for code management across all teams.

The platform integrates with other tools, such as Jenkins, enabling automated workflows for building, testing, and deploying code changes. It triggers the pipeline process, ensuring that builds are generated and deployments are managed efficiently.

The product could be less expensive for small companies.

We have been using Bitbucket for five years.

The product is stable. Being utilized by a multinational company like ours, stability is crucial, and it has consistently delivered on this front. Over the past five years of usage, we have encountered no significant defects or bugs.

We have around 1000 Bitbucket users in our company. On a wider scale, across India, where we have 22,000 employees, Bitbucket adoption is also significant.

The initial setup for Bitbucket was straightforward. The process was similar to deploying GitHub and GitLab, based on Git technology. We have various tools available, such as SourceTree or Visual Studio Code, which can seamlessly integrate with the product. I prefer using Git Bash for command-line operations. However, many others in our team utilize Visual Studio Code, which provides a user-friendly interface for running commands.

In a small-scale company where I previously worked, cost-saving measures led to a transition from GitLab's dedicated servers to GitHub's cloud-based solution. This switch resulted in significant cost savings and demonstrated the impact of cloud technology adoption on budget management. However, my current organization, a larger enterprise with a substantial budget, focuses on reliability and functionality rather than cost alone. Therefore, while Bitbucket may be perceived as costly for smaller companies, larger enterprises like mine prioritize tools like ServiceNow despite their expenses.

While alternatives like GitLab and GitHub were available, our organization remained steadfast in its preference for Bitbucket. Additionally, our team members, particularly those involved in DevOps, CI/CD, and system maintenance, were highly experienced with Bitbucket. Given the critical nature of our work in the banking and insurance sectors, where clients worldwide depend on our products, there was a reluctance to experiment with alternative solutions.

Learning to use Bitbucket, especially for beginners, is quite easy. In my experience spanning over twelve years in the field, most companies rely on Git for version control, and Bitbucket is just one of the platforms built on Git technology. The commands and client tools are the same: Bitbucket, GitHub, or GitLab. This uniformity makes it straightforward for beginners to adopt and use Bitbucket or any Git-based tool without facing significant challenges.

I recommend Bitbucket for version control features. It is a good tool suitable for long-term use. It's straightforward to adapt to, with user-friendly features and a convenient UI. 

I rate it an eight out of ten.

I use it to monitor developers' progress and occasionally check in on ongoing activities to stay informed about the project's status.

It is a highly beneficial platform for fostering collaboration among developers. Its key strength lies in securing and centralizing code repositories. Additionally, it excels in facilitating seamless integration and continuous deployment by offering essential capabilities for automating the deployment process and monitoring developers' progress and tasks.

It would be beneficial to have a straightforward mechanism for integrating the initial tasks defined in Bitbucket with Jira when the need arises.

I have been working with it for over ten years.

The stability of the system is excellent; we haven't encountered any issues.

I have been highly satisfied with scalability and I would rate it ten out of ten. Our project has seen growth from an initial team of around three to five developers to a maximum of eighteen, which includes additional roles such as the Project Lead overseeing the developers' progress. The team size typically starts small and gradually expands as the project evolves.

We didn't need to reach out to tech support. The majority of the issues we faced were successfully resolved through Bitbucket's online technical support and documentation. Our challenges primarily revolved around configuring and setting up pipelines.

When comparing Bitbucket and GitHub, we initially used on-premises GitHub, where we handled maintenance, including patching and updates. This became somewhat challenging and required more management efforts, prompting us to switch to Bitbucket.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The implementation is straightforward since the project involves a small team of around six developers who primarily focus on developing and enhancing the application. Currently, Bitbucket is not utilized for the QA or testing aspect, as testing procedures are manual, and automated testing has not yet been implemented.

We find that the pricing is very affordable.

Overall, I would rate it ten out of ten.

Actually, I have an E-commerce product on that solution and store it there. I deploy the product for each customer and they use it. I'm trying to use the cloud system as my center for distribution. I use Bitbucket for hosting the core code.

I'm using the private cloud because I don't want to have my source public on the internet. I'm very happy about that solution because it's precisely enough for me and my needs. Being private was very important for me, and working with the product's GUI user interface is a good experience. 

While it is a good and useful product for my application, there are several disadvantages to the system. One thing I have seen is that you can't add some better features to the wiki system. For example, better attachment and document management could be more useful. We actually use another system for our documents because the document management system was not suited for us. Maybe they can improve the wiki side of that product. The issue tracking also can be better than it is now.

The wiki side of the system can use the most enhancement. When I want to use the wiki, I have many problems writing the source code in different code languages. We are creating a web program. Because it is a web project, we want to use, for example, JavaScript and we use CSS. Then we want to use Java for the back-end. When we use different languages, we have a problem deploying them with that system.

Sorting documents is an issue, and also issue tracking over in the system is not very professional. If you compare this product with JIRA it is not very good in these capacities. There is a lot of room for improvement. Another comparison could be made with teamwork.com which is better at these things. We used teamwork for a situation where we needed both better document handling and better issue tracking. We wanted to have something like GitLab with all the features of a project management tool.

Another problem that I had involved issues with CICD (Continuous Integration Continuous Deployment). I could not configure it easily. I did not try to resolve the issue and left it for the future. Maybe it was because of the user interface or maybe because the documentation was not so good, but the CICD pipeline wasn't very easy for us to use. Maybe just adding more helpful documentation for that feature will solve the issue.

The limit on the number of users became a problem for us because we live in a country in the Middle East. The issue of spending more money and having additional costs is a really big concern for us. For example, for being the Turkish leader in the field, what we were able to charge the customer compared to what we are paying for services is not cheap. That makes it difficult to make a decent profit, re-invest and grow.

Other additional features I would like to see can help expand how we work with customers. One example is adding a notebook. There is no notebook in the product at all to write notes for your users and customers to remember details about them and have them available.

Another example would be to add a feature that allows you to integrate and converse with GitLab. Sometimes we need to write some notes for something inside GitLab, but it would be good to have the availability to add from both products and have them integrated. 

If BitBucket had online chat and online help for premium users, it will be best for users who need to get support. Programmers want to focus on the code. For example, if I want to configure something in my pipeline or in a product I am building, I may need to read 30 articles to understand what is happening on the system in order to program it. If I am in a rush and I am a programmer, I don't have enough time for that. So if BitBucket had an online chat system for support to help the developers, that could speed up development and access to support itself.

I can understand these things may not be the primary purpose of the BitBucket solution, but maybe if these things can be added the solution would be more independent, better integrated and would be nearly perfect.

This solution is perfectly stable. We never had a problem with it, and after five years it is still running as we expect. I love this program for that. 

Many software companies are trying to scale up on the cloud. BitBucket should add some features to make some better use of the cloud and other integrations. For example, if you want to migrate your product to AWS (Amazon Web Services), the AWS will try to send the source code to a codecomp system. Maybe you have something that you do not want to migrate from the source to Amazon. It would be nice to have controls for that. When you commit the code to BitBucket it would be good to be able to also commit from BitBucket to use AWS. 

In our company, we had ten proficient programmers working on the project and we have good clients in Turkey. We could scale the program as well as the number of users and our market or in other ways. I think I am confident in that. So the product is scalable in many ways.

The company can improve access to technical support. Some of the documentation was not so good. We did not use it much.

From my point of view, the setup for the Atlassian product was better than other products but had less to offer as a system. I tried to switch to TFS (Team Foundation Server), a Microsoft product, and I couldn't use that because I loved this user interface system in the BitBucket product more than TFS.

The first upload of our project was in 2015. I uploaded that code. It wasn't very hard to use the solution or do the deployment. Some of the configuration is not as easy or as good as it could be. The system has changed, but since the implementation, I have made no changes in three years.

In a way, I did evaluate other options but it was after I was already working with BitBucket. I tried to use TFS and GitLab, but I couldn't add my existing support to their systems. I loved this support system that I had with BitBucket — the system was very good. But looked at other solutions because I wanted some other features that these other products claimed to have, like issue tracking and a better wiki. These were things which I couldn't get directly in the BitBucket service. But I had gotten used to the excellent GUI in BitBucket and thought it was almost perfect. There were some things missing but the solution was perfectly enough for us. I decided there was no need to change to TFS or the GIT system after the comparison.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as an eight. I love this product, so actually eight may actually not be good enough for the rating. On the other hand, there is a lot that could be incorporated or improved.

We have around 700 users for this product in our company and a maintenance team of four people. I've recently put in an order to increase that to 1,000 users in the near future and hope to bump this up to 2,000 users down the track. We are end users of this solution and I'm the Head of the DevOps Engineering Center.

It's the code check in and code version controlling.

There is room for improvement in terms of the branching strategies. Instead of leaving the branching strategy for users to decide, Bitbucket could provide some default branching options for users to adopt. For now, users need to configure branching strategies from scratch as there's no template for the code branching. If they came up with a couple of default budgeting strategies, it could be used immediately. For example, there's a branching strategy called GitFlow, which is widely used in the market. It could be included in the tool as a template and adopted quickly and used immediately rather than having to create it from scratch. 

Secondly, when it comes to the code reviewer, there's no way to restrict the number of reviewers, it can only be modified by the project managers on the fly and we don't want the project managers modifying the code reviewers. It should be restricted to the tool administrators. This is another gap in the solution. They really need to give out of the box integrations to all DevOps tools and the cloud tools without the need for additional plugins.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

This is a stable solution and has a very good backup mechanism. There's only an issue if you don't have your backup running and there is a hardware failure or if the database goes out of sync. If that happens, recovery of Bitbucket is very, very complex.We encountered an issue as a result of some incorrect commands triggered by our engineer and it was very difficult to recover. We had to engage the Atlassian product engineers and they also had problems. Eventually, we had to recover each and every line of code manually. If you're using Bitbucket as a code repository or a version controlling tool, users need to ensure that the necessary backup for the file system and databases is configured appropriately. If not, then your recovery will be impacted.

It's a very scalable solution especially if it's hosted on cloud. The only thing is that the developers need to be aware of the number of code branches that they are creating, and carry out the proper housekeeping of the code. If that doesn't happen then the growth of Bitbucket will be enormous, and it might encounter some disk utilization related issues. I would suggest not to rely fully on the tool's capability for scaling up and down. Users need to be aware of what needs to be cleaned and housekeeping required. That aside, it's very scalable.

The technical support of the solution is problematic. If you subscribe to 24/7 support then you're fine. Otherwise they're available eight hours a day, not necessarily during your business hours. Unfortunately, there is no phone number to call the customer care directly which is frustrating. The only option is to raise a support ticket and then wait for them to reply; most of the time they try to avoid the calls and do most of the communication through the support ticket, which is very painful. I've worked for other large companies where they provide a dedicated phone number for customers and escalation of the ticket can be requested. Atlassian is a very poor support model

I've been impacted a couple of times. Even if you put in an escalation request you only get a reply when they get to it and turn on the escalation in their own sweet time. It's very difficult and frustrating. Instead of going for the Atlassian support, we paid a third party vendor, an Atlassian support partner, and we took an annual maintenance contract with them.

Atlassian don't want their customers dependent on them but want them to take up support services from their preferred support partners. There are different levels and if you need something urgently, they'll suggest you contact their premier support partners. It's not a good model and I would rate them poorly in this regard.

I still use Jira and Confluence and have done for many years. It's the same support model for all tools, just like Bitbucket.

The initial setup is not very complex. It took us about a week, perhaps less.

The price of Bitbucket is on the high side, but I think that's because of the tool's capability, which is justifiable. If you're purchasing for a smaller number of users then the license cost per user is definitely expensive, but if you buy a greater number of licenses, then it likely becomes a little cheaper.

Atlassian is a very clever company. They sell the base product a little cheaper, and on top of that they sell many important plugins or add-ons which you need but which are also expensive. You might think you have a reasonably good deal but the base product will not have some of the important features and if you look at the final cost, it's a little expensive. But the tool has good capabilities and very good features not explored by many other Git based version controlling tools like GitLab or GitHub.

I would have given Atlassian a nine out of 10, but because of the technical support issues and pricing, I would give them a seven out of 10 rating. I wouldn't even complain about the cost but they really need to improve their support model. 

I use Bitbucket for plugins and Active Directory integration. It helps me onboard users for an automation suit. I also use it to check codes and generate reports on a daily basis. 

The tool's automation helped because we onboarded a lot of projects and teams into Bitbucket. The product's automation helped us complete activities in two days which previously used to take around two weeks to complete. We have completely automated processes that were earlier manual. It has good integration with Jira and Jenkins. 

Bitbucket should integrate a static code analyzer. 

I have been working with the product for two years. 

I would rate Bitbucket's stability an eight out of ten. 

My company has less than five users for the product. We use it daily. 

My interaction with the customer support team is good. 

Positive

I would rate Bitbucket's setup an eight out of ten since we had a lot of documentation available. We completed the tool's deployment over three to four months. We had a small team of two to four guys to help us with the deployment. One person is enough to handle the product's maintenance. 

We didn't rely on any third-party to complete the tool's deployment. 

Bitbucket is user-friendly and easy to configure. I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

We use Bitbucket for managing and merging code versions, as well as for continuous integration when deploying code to different environments. It helps us to identify and resolve conflicts and to track the changes made to the code by different developers.

The most valuable feature of Bitbucket is you can see the differences between the fresh code and the old code before you merge. Additionally, the solution is easy to use and well-integrated.

Bitbucket can improve by integrating a tool to manage conflict code. This would save time.

I have been using Bitbucket for approximately five years.

The solution is stable. I did not find any bugs.

I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

The scalability of Bitbucket is not limited, but when there are many users it takes a bit of time. For example, every click that you do is slow sometimes. However, this issue might not have something to do with the number of users using it.

We have approximately 500 users using this solution in my company and it is used daily.

I rate the scalability of Bitbucket a nine out of ten.

I have not used the support.

This is a great tool that can help a lot to manage code between the environment, and merge codes and is highly stable.

I rate Bitbucket a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is version control, integration with Jenkins for build management, and integration to Jira so that there is traceability to any issues from the build. We also work with code review and pull requests.

The most valuable feature is the bundle itself because we use them all. However, code reviews and the ability to support DevSecOps are very important.

The mandatory move to the cloud model is the biggest complaint. There are some minor things like customization, configuration, pricing, and limitations in general. I think the configuration can be improved because it is getting more complicated and not very well organized.

I have been working with Bitbucket ever since it was released ten years ago.

Bitbucket is definitely stable.

We were using GitHub before switching to Bitbucket. We do not trust corporations, because we do not want to make our private code available to these corporations. We do not want to just put it on a public site and therefore we switched to Bitbucket.

In the initial setup, you definitely need to be a developer or system administrator. I do not think it is for the faint of heart. You have to set up the reverse proxy and the DNS, so it is accessible from the outside world and make sure all the JVM settings are correct. 

We stay within the ten-user limit and it is affordable and we pay around one hundred dollars. However when you increase from ten people to anything higher the price increase to one thousand five hundred. That is unsatisfactory and they should have a gradual price slope.

I would rate Bitbucket a nine out of ten.