Bitbucket is very similar to Gitlab, so none of them are better. If you need similar products and great integrations then Bitbucket with Jira and Confluence from Atlassian is a great choice for a medium size company. For startups I can recommend Gitlab or Bitbucket, because of …
I have used Gitblit and GitHub apart from bitbucket. The only thing bitbucket lacks is the ability to create issues against commits like GitHub issues and a similar feature in Gitblit.
I have also used Gitlab and GitHub. There are pros and cons to using each version control system. While Gitlab has a much better interface and is easier to use, it has fewer features and integrations than BitBucket. GitHub is king, but costs money for private repositories. …
Using Bitbucket, GitHub, AccuRev, and svn over my dev career, I like Bitbucket the most. It's nice web UI and integration with JIRA and Sourcetree make it my favorite SCM solution.
Our organization previously used GitHub as our VCS host and the move to Bitbucket has been very smooth and without any hassles, our team really enjoys the simple and easy to use UI over GitHub which allows for interactive code reviewing, the code search engine is also more …
BitBucket is the most full featured hosted service I've found that includes free private repositories. GitHub is as good, perhaps better in many ways, but charges for private repositories. Beanstalk has decent deployment tools built in which other services generally do not …
GitHub has a huge community to support, so, beside the price, is the best tool I've used as a git server. Gitlab is very similar to BitBucket, and for a free version as less limitations. Also is cheaper for companies, but doesn't have a smooth integration with JIRA. Also has a …
I haven't really researched a whole lot with GitHub or SourceForge. I know there are a lot of people that use GitHub and it has kind of become a bit part of the industry. Whenever i have used GitHub to submit pull requests it has also seemed pretty easy to do, but I haven't …
Naturally, Bitbucket will be compared to GitHub, that has reached a tremendous importance in the open source software industry. Overall, Bitbucket comes with similar set of features as GitHub. Bitbucket brought a good integration with other Atlassian products (especially Conflue…
Bitbucket provides a better price compared to the others as well as private repositories for people who do not want everything they do to be completely public and accessible for all to see.
Drastically simpler both in pricing and ease of use than the competition. For only $10/month your team has unlimited private repos! That is an outright bargain! If you are a small team that doesn't require all of the advanced services that come with larger infrastructure and …
Front-End Web Developer, Office of Mediated Education
Chose Git
The two main alternatives to Git that I know about are Mercurial and Subversion. I've never used either one, but I know a bit about Subversion. From what I remember, Subversion requires a server. I don't anyone using any other source control other than Git, it seems to have …
It's easy to use and stable. These are the two strengths I see in Git. It does not need a lot of time to learn, but you still need to learn it. It has high stability. Bugs are not often to see in Git, and the community support is wonderful. With the help of GitHub, you can …
Git is the best Source Control Management Tool I've used. Every company, team, and project I've worked on professionally either used Git 100%, or was moving to Git, away from the alternatives like SVN. Git has all the features necessary, as well as a very large community of …
After using Subversion previously for a number of years, Git comes across as the new and improved source control approach. Git seems very suited to working with Agile:- branches can be created easily, allowing multiple developers to switch to them quickly, and having local …
As a team we need to push code into the repo on daily basis, Bitbucket has proven that is a reliable and secure server to save and get the code available in no time. The administration part is really easy and there's an extra tool for every developer profile either if you want to use the console or a GUI like Sourcetree.
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.
Very easy to integrate with other DevOps tools like Jenkins and with project/workflow management tools like JIRA.
Very efficient in managing security and compliance standards for code, especially during pull requests, merge requests, branching, etc.
Very robust in performance, especially the cloud and datacenter versions hardly hit any performance issues and supports more than 2000+ developers in my company.
All products have room for improvement. The system improves over time with better and better integrations and I look forward to even more features without paying extra! The system has increased transparency across my organization and with this transparency comes increased throughput on projects. I don't think I can go back to any other system and we are definitely married to this product.
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.
The architecture of Bitbucket makes it more easily scalable than other source code management repositories. Also, administration and maintaining the instance is very easy. It integrates with JIRA and other CI/CD applications which makes it more useful to reduce the efforts. It supports multiple plugins and those bring a lot of extra functionality. It increases the overall efficiency and usefulness of Bitbucket.
The customer support provided by Atlassian (Bitbucket's parent company that also makes Jira, Confluence, etc.) is very helpful. They seem to be very concerned about any issues reported with their products and even just questions about functionality. They are constantly improving the products with new features in nearly every release. Plus they have a plethora of online documentation to reference.
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.
For the features we were looking at, Bitbucket, GitHub and GitLab were all at par and were in a similar price range. We found that GitHub was the most full featured should we need to scale very quickly. GitLab was at par with GitHub for our future needs, but GitHub was a more familiar tool compared to GitLab. Bitbucket won out because of its close integration with Jira and being in the Atlassian family. It was also cheaper than GitHub. As we started with Jira, Bitbucket addition became a natural next step for us. We really liked Bitbucket and stayed with it but we do know we have great options in the form of GitHub and GitLab should we need to scale fast.
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.
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.
