What needs improvement with Bitbucket?

In Bitbucket, manual processes are needed to handle changes between repositories. Automation for this process would be beneficial. We need a script that can automatically integrate specified changes at certain times without manual intervention. Additionally, an easier way to write automation scripts could significantly reduce the amount of scripting required.

In term of improvements, I cannot think of any particular features missing or needing enhancement at this moment.

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

The product could benefit from enhancements in scaling capabilities for continuous deployment processes and better integration with other cloud platforms beyond AWS.

The product could be less expensive for small companies.

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

I haven't encountered any issues with the solution since I am familiar with the basic Git workflows. Most of my criticisms are directed towards Git and not Bitbucket specifically, so I can say that it can be a challenge to onboard new people who need to learn how to use the commit code in Bitbucket. In general, the aforementioned flaw is not a fault related to Bitbucket but more of a problem caused by Git and the knowledge gap that new users experience. Bitbucket can be made more user-friendly for new users. Every solution nowadays makes use of AI to make their workflows easier for its users. Bitbucket doesn't currently offer AI functionalities. Though I am unsure how AI features can be incorporated into Bitbucket, I would like to see Bitbucket with AI functionalities.

There could be more AI features included in the product.

The module component needs improvement.

The UI could be a little better compared to competing solutions.

There is room for improvement in the workflow. Other similar tools offer automation and more streamlined workflows, which Bitbucket currently lacks. In additional features, I would like to see more low-code options for certain tasks. When we compare it to another solution like GitHub, in my opinion, Bitbucket could offer us more automation and actions in the future. This would be a valuable feature for improving our projects.

The scalability for the cloud version can be improved.

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

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.

Bitbucket could improve search and indexing capabilities. There is only basic searching available. There is only the ability to index the main branch but not the subbranches. The search capabilities are dodgy. In a future release, the way they manage the permission of the records in the solution could be better. They fit well if you're only running one or two projects. If you have a lot of projects and records, the current permission model is not flexible. You have a challenge if you want to provide permissions across all the projects to be the same. Additionally, if you want to have specific permission there are limitations. There requires a lot of redundant work to accomplish what we want.

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 would like to see the development operations side improved. The main challenge that we faced is implementing anything on the cloud. We need an improved automation feature for the cloud.

Bitbucket could improve its security. For example, the user access security could improve.

Bitbucket could improve pipeline building and deployment. Our deployments are not using the Bitbucket. Deployments we are going through Azure DevOps, but the integration is happening in Bitbucket. The repository and the access levels could improve.

Sometimes we struggle with searching on repositories. It is a bit challenging sometimes to pinpoint the code or repositories when just filtering by repositories. That search capability could be improved to become more intuitive. It should allow for, for example, searching for specific source files or repositories or searching the code inside the source files. That kind of flexibility would be helpful. Of course, making the tool free would be great as well. Its cost is probably why it is not used very much in smaller companies.

One of the areas the solution could improve on is when there is a merging conflict it is quite confusing. When I am having a merging conflict I get stuck on the page, then I need to search how to handle the particular problem. For example, finding what the commands are which can be used. I might not have the proper knowledge of it. However, the merging processes can be difficult and could be made easier. Overall there should be better documentation available. When I first started out it would have been very helpful because I had to search to find out how to use the solution. In an upcoming release, the solution could improve the collaboration. Additionally, there should be some startup tool or features for whenever we have local changes or updates it will prevent us from submitting any change unless they have been removed locally. For example, there should be some sort of command tool that can remove my local code first and then checking it by taking code from the latest one to resolve it.

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.

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.

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.

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 think the developers are constantly working on improving the pull requests support. It already works quite well, but there are still some issues with the support of the workflow and how to actually measure the time you spend on using reviews for pull requests compared to the time you actually use for doing the task. I am not really sure how that should be handled. I don't have a good solution for it yet.

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.