Likelihood to Recommend 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
Read full review GIT is good to be used for faster and high availability operations during code release cycle. Git provides a complete replica of the repository on the developer's local system which is why every developer will have complete repository available for quick access on his system and they can merge the specific branches that they have worked on back to the centralized repository. The limitations with GIT are seen when checking in large files.
Read full review Pros 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 Read full review Ability to create branches off current releases to modify code that can be tested in a separate environment. Each developer had their own local copy of branches so it minimizes mistakes being made. Has a user-friendly UI called Git Gui that users can use if they do not like using the command line. Conflicts are displayed nicely so that developers can resolve with ease. Read full review Cons 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. Read full review There can be quite a number of commands once you get to the advanced features and functionality of Git. Takes time to master. Doesn't handle static assets (ie: videos, images, etc.) well. Although in the recent years, new functionality has been introduced to address this. Many different GUIs, many people (including myself) opt to just use the command-line. Read full review Likelihood to Renew Because we're so locked in, it's likely we'll be using Bitbucket Server for a while, unfortunately.
Read full review Git has met all standards for a source control tool and even exceeded those standards. Git is so integrated with our work that I can't imagine a day without it.
Read full review Usability 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.
Read full review Git is easy to use most of the time. You mostly use a few commands like commiting, fetch/pull, and push which will get you by for most of time.
Read full review Support Rating 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.
Read full review I am not sure what the official Git support channels are like as I have never needed to use any official support. Because Git is so popular among all developers now, it is pretty easy to find the answer to almost any Git question with a quick Google search. I've never had trouble finding what I'm looking for.
Nate Dillon Front-End Web Developer, Office of Mediated Education
Read full review Implementation Rating It's easy to set up and get going.
Read full review Alternatives Considered 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 .
Read full review I've used both
Apache Subversion & Git over the years and have maintained my allegiance to Git. Git is not objectively better than Subversion. It's different.
The key difference is that it is decentralized. With Subversion, you have a problem here: The SVN Repository may be in a location you can't reach (behind a VPN, intranet - etc), you cannot commit. If you want to make a copy of your code, you have to literally copy/paste it. With Git, you do not have this problem. Your local copy is a repository, and you can commit to it and get all benefits of source control. When you regain connectivity to the main repository, you can commit against it. Another thing for consideration is that Git tracks content rather than files. Branches are lightweight and merging is easy, and I mean really easy.
It's distributed, basically every repository is a branch. It's much easier to develop concurrently and collaboratively than with Subversion, in my opinion. It also makes offline development possible. It doesn't impose any workflow, as seen on the above linked website, there are many workflows possible with Git. A Subversion-style workflow is easily mimicked.
Read full review Return on Investment 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. Read full review Git has saved our organization countless hours having to manually trace code to a breaking change or manage conflicting changes. It has no equal when it comes to scalability or manageability. Git has allowed our engineering team to build code reviews into its workflow by preventing a developer from approving or merging in their own code; instead, all proposed changes are reviewed by another engineer to assess the impact of the code and whether or not it should be merged in first. This greatly reduces the likelihood of breaking changes getting into production. Git has at times created some confusion among developers about what to do if they accidentally commit a change they decide later they want to roll back. There are multiple ways to address this problem and the best available option may not be obvious in all cases. Read full review ScreenShots