Bitbucket Server (discontinued) vs. Mercurial

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

If you generally think that to develop software you have to choose one repository, then in my opinion you have to choose between Mercurial and Git, there is not other solution. Mercurial also has a good merge tool which i can recommend. This gives you the flexibility to push just the "part of the feature", and is much better suited in the case where the "part of feature" and some other "part of the feature" both contain changes to the same file.

Incentivized

• 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

• Branch
• Distributed architecture
• Stable
• Platform independent

Incentivized

• 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

• Integration with visual studio
• More integrated tools
• When I install Mercurial I always have to do a hard restart of my computer.

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

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

When we chose Mercurial it was more popular from perspectives than Git and we have too many problems with the Microsoft team foundation solution. We also want to move from a centralized version of source control to a distributed one. We also were working more and more via the Internet with our source control so distributed version was only solution.

Incentivized

• 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

• Improve time in merging
• Branching enables us to keep separate version per customer
• Good tool for programmers is sometimes a reason to stay

Incentivized