Bitbucket Reviews

The solution is used for web-development

The solution is good for cloud collaborative work. During the time I was working as a release manager, I could manage the tool request and the technical problems that occurred on the site of the development.

We can watch the newly implemented code. So it's quite nice to organize the teams to see what part of the work is done and what part of the code is already old or new. It is very good for that kind of management.

The scalability for the cloud version can be improved.

I have been using the solution for nine months.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution. The cloud version is not scalable. But if you pay for the premium version it is very scalable. Five users are using the solution at a time.

I have only taken demos for products before and did not use anything. It was mainly the license solution. I was searching in several websites, and all of them were talking good things about the Atlassian solution. So I decided to give it a try.

The initial setup was easy and quick.

I deployed the solution myself.

I did not pay for the license as I was using a corporate license. But I think the pricing is fair.

It's very easy to use and a nice tool to manage. And I think the first implementation or the configuration is very important so that teams could work with that.

I rate it nine out of ten.

We're using Bitbucket for version control and deployment.

What I like best about Bitbucket is that you can use it for deployment, primarily if your IP addresses do not work well with your deployment scripts. You can use the tool to whitelist IP addresses during deployment.

Currently, what's lacking in Bitbucket is the assignment feature or the feature of giving permissions to other users.

I've been working with Bitbucket since 2014.

The scalability of Bitbucket is ten out of ten. Bitbucket has documentation on how to scale, and you can also communicate with the Bitbucket team for any scalability-related questions.

I have yet to contact the technical support team for Bitbucket.

Currently, we are moving from Bitbucket to GitLab for convenience, but at the moment, we're still using both solutions.

Setting up Bitbucket is simple because you can log in with your email account.

My team uses scripts developed on Ruby to do Bitbucket deployments.

Bitbucket is a low-priced tool.

My company evaluated GitLab.

I'm working as a software engineer.

My company has four Bitbucket users.

My rating for Bitbucket is nine out of ten.

I recommend the tool to others. One company even consulted with me, and I told that company to focus on Bitbucket.

My company is a Bitbucket user. There's no partnership currently.

Bitbucket has a global way of collecting data from air conditioners and real-time data collection for global customers.

We like that it can be integrated with Jira.

We should be able to choose the size of the RAM or container classification. We would like to see more infrastructure for the code. The scalability could be improved.

We have been using Bitbucket for nine months.

I rate the stability a five out of ten. In our organization, we have a lot of microservices, so our project wasn't that stable.

I rate the scalability a four out of ten, and it could be improved. We have about 20 users.

The setup was okay, and it was well-integrated. We are using a subscription cloud.

GitLab UI is better than Bitbucket. The UI in Bitbucket could be better. Jira is also not easy to understand.

I rate this solution a seven out of ten. We want people to use Jira for an integrated approach between Jira and all the products. Regarding advice, If you want an enterprise-class product, I first recommend Jira, and then I would recommend Bitbucket.

Our primary use case is for source coding and continuous integration.

Bitbucket has helped improve our organization by speeding up our production efficiency and product delivery processes.

Bitbucket is an integral part of our CI/CD project.

I would like to see the integration with some of the cloud service providers improved.

I have been using Bitbucket for the past year.

Bitbucket does not have a problem with stability.

The scalability of Bitbucket is reliable and we have over two thousand five hundred product items in place and the solution is operating as expected.

Technical support is good. We are facing accessibility maybe once a month. This is a small number in comparison with others in the field.

The initial setup of Bitbucket is not complex but you need to have a good working knowledge of the infrastructure.

The implementation can be done in-house and takes two to three hours.

When it comes to licensing we have the standard plan.

I can definitely recommend using Bitbucket and would rate them a nine out of ten.

Our company uses the solution for code management. 

It is easy to write code and store it in the central repository. 

Fine tuning for procedures and features related to analytics and code validation is needed. 

There are some issues in obtaining licenses.

I have been using the solution for two years. 

The solution is stable so I rate it a nine out of ten. 

The dynamic solution is definitely scalable and customizable to any need. 

Technical support is pretty helpful so I rate them an eight out of ten. 

Positive

The setup is simple with no issues. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

Sometimes there are issues in obtaining licenses and the pricing could be improved.

I rate pricing a six out of ten. 

We did not evaluate other options. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

Bitbucket's most valuable feature is the web interface, which is useful compared to other tools, has a lot of features, and is intuitive. 

I've been using Bitbucket for two years.

Bitbucket is very stable.

Bitbucket's scalability is good for a single location.

We used an in-house team.

I understand Bitbucket's cost is on the higher side.

Before implementing Bitbucket, people should be clear on the tools they will have to adopt based on their needs. It goes well with other Atlassian solutions like Jira or Bamboo, but integration with other third-party solutions is more complex. I would give Bitbucket a rating of nine out of ten.

It's a source control system. We have lots of source code and we wanted to move to Git and there are a lot of different Git solutions out there, including free stuff. But we liked the features of Bitbucket, because it takes off some of the sharp edges, so to speak. It's a more professional version than the free open source Git that's widely available.

We have a couple of different tools that allow us to tie source code changes to report bugs. It's integrated with our bug tracking system and also integrated with our requirement tracking system. So we have better facilities. We could integrate these solutions using command line "hooks", but when we do it all manually, it's not likely to happen.

Even with the automation, we've had some situations where we've had mistakes. Developers have integrated code into the wrong place by mistake, so there's a fairly steep learning curve.

Being in the cloud and using large repositories can be slow. They should improve synchronizing very large repositories.

I have been using Bitbucket for six months. 

It's pretty stable. We just had one incident where one of our developers somehow got access to somebody else's code using his own credentials.  He logged in like he normally does but could not see our source code; all he could see was somebody else's source code instead. That's a security problem. They cleaned it up somehow and the next time he logged in, there was no issue.   

We don't have any issues with scalability. And no issues with availability today. It's on the cloud that you look for is, it's accessible worldwide, it's always working and you don't have to rely on your IT to keep it running.

There are around 100 users in our company. Their roles are Developers, DevOps, and QA.

We use several different source control systems and it's a big deal to change.  All the groups that were interested have now made the jump. 

I haven't contacted customer support. When we had the incident with the employee logging in with his credentials, we called support and told them this one guy had a problem. Other than that incident it's been stable and available. No real complaints.

The setup was kind of complex. We started out with some simple examples and that was easy enough. But then when we went to migrate real code repositories, we had to get into what they call large file storage, which was complex to set up.

The deployment took about a month with a small focus group and I would say it probably took two or three months to get everybody comfortable using it.

We use it on the cloud. It's the latest and greatest. You don't have to pay for maintenance and you get automatic updates and hardware and backups and all that nice stuff. I paid a little premium for it, but you get a lot of benefits.

Licensing is on a monthly basis, it's available on their website. They have a free version, a pro version and then they have an enterprise version.  The Pro version is kind of the middle of the road for about $7 per user per month.

I would advise getting some Git training.  Something like 85% of all developers use Git. So it's like the defacto standard for source control.  Bitbucket is a brand of Git that has some nice features on top of the core functionality.

The biggest lesson learned was, we should've done a little bit more training for the developers. It was very informal and should've probably been more formal, not necessarily sending everybody to university or a class, but a little more hand-holding.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. I give it this rating because there was the integration with the other tools.

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. 

We develop our own applications and all of our source code activities are managed and tracked on Bitbucket.

Bitbucket is a standard git implementation with perfectly coordinated screens, it's secure, and we have had no problems with it.

We are satisfied with the user interface.

The installation of Bitbucket on our server was not as easy as other Atlassian products, so it is something that can be improved. The same is true for the upgrade process. I have upgraded it twice, and it is similar to the initial installation.

I have been using Bitbucket for two years.

We have had no problems and I'm satisfied with the stability. We use it quite heavily because all of our applications and updates are handled on different branches in Bitbucket.

I cannot say much with respect to scalability because we are a small company with a maximum of five people who are using the product.

In the two years that we have been using Bitbucket, we have not needed any support.

Prior to using Bitbucket, we were using the freeware version of SVN. We switched because Bitbucket has better features, especially for source code maintenance.

The initial setup was a little bit complex. It requires more intervention on the Linux console than the other Atlassian products. You need to adjust more files, for example.

It took us about a month to deploy and three people were involved in the process. Only one person is required for maintenance because it is generally maintained by Atlassian.

The deployment was done by our in-house team.

We have seen ROI but I cannot easily quantify it with numbers.

We are using the minimum package with ten users and we are happy with the price because we are a small company. With our small number of users, our licensing fees are approximately $10 USD per month. There are no fees in addition to this.

We evaluated GitHub but we require our own server for source code management.

This solution is good and it covers all our needs. Periodically, I receive announcements from Atlassian, mostly concerning the security features. They are fixing the newly discovered vulnerabilities and also, there are some other improvements in the features. Normally, I am not affected by the new features because we don't require them.

My advice is to start using this solution because it works very well and we are very satisfied with the functionality. If somebody knows how to configure git for libraries then they can implement Bitbucket as well.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for managing our own repository.

I don't have too much experience with Bitbucket; I use GitHub more often.

It's easy to switch back and forth between Bitbucket and GitHub.

The code review and creation of requests need improvement. In GitHub it's much easier and broader and that makes everything easier to see.

The solution is not user-friendly. Right now, the solution is not so easy to understand. It needs to update its design and overall user experience.

I've been using the solution for several months.

The solution is relatively stable. It's much more stable than GitHub.

The solution is fairly scalable. I'm not sure if scaling affects pricing, however. We often have around 100 users on the solution, but it depends on the project.

I've never had to contact technical support.

We did previously use a different solution. We switched to Bitbucket when we switched projects.

The initial deployment is rather straightforward and only takes 30 minutes to an hour.

I handled the implementation myself.

We use the cloud deployment model.

We use the solution pretty extensively, but it depends on the client and the project.

I'd suggest those considering implementing the solution try all the functionalities in the trial period. That way you can decide if it will work for your projects.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.