AWS CodeCommit vs. Bitbucket Server (discontinued)

Non-cloud users often complain about CodeCommit because it is so barebones, which it is. However, I believe that is by design. It is not supposed to be a full-fledged AI integrated GitLab alternative. Once users or developers get over the learning curve and required Cloud dependency, CodeCommit is a great service that offers a perfect complement / augmentation to on prem options. It is ideal for Cloud-native deployments where the code and production service are close together.

Bitbucket Server would be good to use if you are not extremely reliant on the availability of your code at any given moment. If you have other systems relying on the up status of Bitbucket Server that can cause problems if unable to reach it -- you might consider going with a different product

Incentivized

• Lightweight
• Native IAM integration
• Collaboration
• High Availability

• Pull requests / code reviews are simple but effective - it's easy to discuss the changes and enforce quality gates (through integration with Bamboo)
• The access control model is fairly granular, with per-branch and per-action permission configuration options
• There are various plugins available to extend functionality, such as SonarQube

Incentivized

• Integration with non-Cloud services
• Learning curve for devs
• Barebones

• Bitbucket Server (formerly Stash) should be evaluated for implementation based on the capacity of the environment ownership and support.
• Insights and analytics reports are basic.
• Bitbucket Server (formerly Stash) as part of Atlassian tools has some restrictions for centralized user management.

Incentivized

Because we're so locked in, it's likely we'll be using Bitbucket Server for a while, unfortunately.

Incentivized

The usability of its interface is pretty straight forward when it comes to creating projects and repositories, but when you have to dive into finer grained portions of the UI things can get tricky. If you are used to using tools like GitHub or Gitlab -- Bitbucket is just different enough to be a bother.

Incentivized

Never really needed any support as the application is very easy to set up and maintain. Any questions we had were well documented in their online documentation, and community forum.

Incentivized

CodeCommit is a cloud native solution where GitHub is typically run on prem which requires a team to manage the physical servers and the software on top of it. CodeCommit is a better choice when doing Cloud focused workloads. GitHub Copilot offers more features than the leaner CodeCommit, however does not have the same integration options

Stash was selected before I was at the company, but we're looking at these alternatives and actively considering switching. Stash seems to have all the necessary features we need to make it work, but it doesn't have any bells and whistles or extra special features that we can use to create more advanced integrations with other products like Jenkins or Amazon Web Services.

Incentivized

• 20% reduction in traffic to on-prem GitHub
• No additional server capacity required
• No overhead or maintainance

• Stash has certainly improved the productivity of the team. We no longer have to use Shared Drive on network which is prone to hacks and errors to manage our code.
• During the process of releases, the release engineering team can pull the latest and approved code from Stash and need not be dependent upon the availability of the developers during their non availability. It improves productivity and fastens the ETA for requests.
• We have stayed on course for project deadlines since introduction of Stash and helps us achieve the goals of timely completion of projects.

Incentivized