Bitbucket Reviews

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

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.

• The whitelisting feature - Except for the white listed IPs nobody can access it.
• It is on the cloud which, security-wise, is a plus point. 
• It has several flows that makes it an effective user-review system to help avoid unwanted code. 
• It also has different levels of security, different levels of encryption.

Initially, we were using other SCM tools that do not have stringent rules that your code should be reviewed first and only then can you commit the code. Bitbucket has push and pull features, that process. When someone wants to commit code, they first pull the code and submit a review request. The request goes to the reviewer and he has to review first, then only he can allow it to be merged.

This process has improved the code quality because every time we commit code it is reviewed by peers, and only then can you commit the code.

It has a distinct tree type of structure that any branch that you need to create can only be a replication of, more or less, of the changes. You can not have a branch that is totally different from the root. This is an advantage but also a drawback. Being a developer, I would prefer to have these kinds of rules. But again, that does not allow me to use the same repository for a different kind of structure so I would need to create a new repository if I am changing the whole structure of the application. You can say both, it is a drawback or it is plus of the application.

Another thing, the time it takes for the repository to get downloaded and be available increases if you are using the cloud version. The only thing we can improve is the bandwidth. If you have low bandwidth and you have a relatively large repository, say more than one GB, it will take a lot of time.

Six to eight months now.

Until now, we haven't found any issues with stability. Once only, there was an issue, we were not able to connect to the application server. That was resolved within some 15 minutes, as soon as we filed a ticket and reported it, it was resolved in 15 minutes. I don't think that there is any issue with stability.

Right now, we are at around 200 developers using it and we haven't found any issue with the scalability.

I haven't called them, but we use their technical support system by submitting a ticket. I would rate it as eight out of 10, their support by email, etc.

We were using something else initially. We switched to Bitbucket as it is a cloud version and we need to support multiple locations; people from multiple locations are accessing the code. Until now, it has been quite helpful.

Because it's a cloud version, we did not need to do any kind of setup with it. We initially started using the trial version of it for 30 days. We created some repositories and started accessing it. Later on, we bought the Enterprise version of it. There were no issues, as such, in setting it up.

We had a few options: Installing it on-prem, and we were also using the previous solution. We found that we prefer Bitbucket as we were going to get good support from a known company. The other thing was that it is on the cloud so we wouldn't have to maintain the server and deal with other maintenance issues. That's why we prefer Bitbucket.

If someone is going to migrate their own code from an SCM to Bitbucket, it could take a lot of time if your code is a bit older. That means that you have larger number of divisions, so it could really take much more time for transferring that to Bitbucket. Otherwise, there's no issue migrating. If it's something that will go directly into Bitbucket, it's just a one-step process.

When it comes to the migration process, because most developers are used to working on other tools, migrating them to Bitbucket takes some time. If Bitbucket had its own migration tool or utility that could be used directly to transfer your SCMs from the older system to Bitbucket, it would have been better. We had to figure out some way or other to do that. If they would have provided something like that, that would have been a plus point.

Overall, it's quite good. It gives you lots of flexibility to use it. It follows all of the site framework. The best practice is that you are required to have your code reviewed before it's committed. Also, there are many layers of permissions that you can apply to a repository.