Share your experience using Canonical Bazaar

My main use case for Atlassian SourceTree is managing our Git repositories across multiple projects. We use it as a visual Git client so developers who aren't as comfortable with the command line can still work efficiently with branches, commits, and merges. It sits at the center of our day-to-day development workflow.

In a typical day, Atlassian SourceTree is open in the background most of the time. First thing in the morning, I pull the latest changes from the remote repository to make sure I'm starting the day in sync with whatever the rest of the team pushed overnight. Throughout the day as I'm working on features or fixes, I commit changes in Atlassian SourceTree rather than the terminal. The visual diff view is really useful for that. Before I commit anything, I scan through exactly what changed line by line so I'm not accidentally committing something I didn't intend to.

I use Atlassian SourceTree for branch management probably the most heavily. We follow a GitFlow style workflow, so there are always multiple feature branches, hotfix branches, and release branches going on at the same time. Being able to see all of that laid out visually in the commit graph, rather than trying to picture it in your head from command line output, is much easier. When it comes to merging, especially pulling a feature branch back into main, I use Atlassian SourceTree to review the diff properly before I do anything. It has saved me from a few challenging situations over the years.

The best features Atlassian SourceTree offers is that you can see the entire branch structure laid out clearly, which makes it much easier to understand what's going on across a project.

Atlassian SourceTree has positively impacted my organization because benefits add up over a year when you're bringing in new developers regularly. Avoiding merge disasters has real value. Even one bad merge that takes half a day to untangle costs more than the tool would if it wasn't free. The return on investment is significant.

The main issue for improving Atlassian SourceTree is performance.

I have been working in my current field for six years.

Atlassian SourceTree is stable as it works well for our team size.

Atlassian SourceTree's customer support is satisfactory as we've never needed to raise a formal support ticket because the community resources have always had what we needed. The documentation is decent, and the community is active enough that most questions are already answered somewhere.

Before Atlassian SourceTree, most of the team was using Git from the command line. It worked fine for senior developers, but it was a barrier for junior team members. Atlassian SourceTree gave everyone a common interface regardless of their command-line confidence.

Atlassian SourceTree has positively impacted my organization because benefits add up over a year when you're bringing in new developers regularly. Avoiding merge disasters has real value. Even one bad merge that takes half a day to untangle costs more than the tool would if it wasn't free. The return on investment is significant.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Atlassian SourceTree is that it's completely free, which was a big factor for us. There are no licensing costs, no approvals needed, just download and install.

Before choosing Atlassian SourceTree, I evaluated other options such as GitKraken and GitHub Desktop. GitKraken was really polished and feature-rich, but the pricing model didn't suit us.

My advice to others looking into using Atlassian SourceTree is that it's a great tool, especially for teams with mixed technical backgrounds. Go in knowing it's not a full replacement for understanding Git properly. It helps a lot, but you'll still hit situations where knowing the command line saves you. I would rate this product seven out of ten.

GitHub serves as our primary platform for source code management, version control, team collaboration, code reviews, CI/CD automation, and issue tracking in software development. We store and manage source code in centralized repositories, hosting web application code in private repositories. We track code changes and maintain history using Git, with the ability to revert to a previous code version if an issue occurs. Code review is crucial to our process, as senior developers review and approve code before merging it into the main branch and running automatic tests after every code commit.

Our team collaborates on GitHub by using it for version control, CI/CD workflows, and collaboration. Developers collaborate on code changes through branches and pull requests. For issue tracking, we track bugs, enhancements, and development tasks by logging bug issues and assigning them to developers.

GitHub is deployed in our organization primarily to store application code, manage branches, review pull requests, and automate deployments. It supports code management, version control, collaboration, and DevOps automation across our software development team.

The best features GitHub offers include version control, repositories, pull requests, code reviews, issue tracking, and automation workflows. These features significantly improve collaboration, code quality, and development efficiency. Our development team uses pull requests and code reviews to validate and merge code changes before production deployment.

Automation workflows in GitHub help my team by providing capabilities through GitHub Actions, which automate software development workflows directly within repositories. Automation features such as CI/CD pipelines, automated build, test, and deployment processes run tests automatically after code commits or pull requests. Regarding deployment automation, we deploy applications automatically to environments, run recurring workflows on schedules, and automate alerts and approval steps. Whenever a developer pushes code, GitHub Actions automatically run unit tests and deploy the application after successful validation.

GitHub has positively impacted my organization by improving collaboration, code quality, version tracking, and development efficiency. It has helped multiple developers work on the same project without overriding code. The specific outcomes since using GitHub include faster code deployment cycles, improved code quality through reviews, better version control and change tracking, reduced code conflicts among developers, automatic testing and deployment workflows, and increased team collaboration and visibility. We see improvements in pull request merge time, deployment frequency, build success rate, issue resolution time, and code review completion time.

GitHub could be improved in several ways. Permission management and access control can become complex in large organizations, and advanced reporting with more built-in analytics and reporting for repositories and team productivity would be beneficial. The cost of enterprise features along with advanced security and enterprise functions can be expensive. Managing repository permissions across multiple teams and projects requires additional governance.

Common challenges I face include repository management, access control, and workflow handling. A pull request may fail to merge because another developer changed the same code section, causing merge conflicts. Common challenges in GitHub include merge conflicts, branch management complexity, permission governance, and troubleshooting automation workflows.

Other improvements needed for GitHub include better reporting, workflow debugging, repository governance, search efficiency, and notification management, such as better filtering of pull requests, issues, and workflow alerts. Easier policy enforcement across multiple repositories is also essential.

I have been working in my current field for five years.

GitHub is generally very stable and reliable, making it more scalable for larger projects. Our team uses it daily for source control and CI/CD pipelines, which indicates that GitHub can support day-to-day development activities with consistent performance and availability.

My experience with customer support is good. Our development team can raise support tickets for repository access issues, billing concerns, and CI/CD workflow problems. Customer support provides proper documentation and knowledge regarding the problems we face, along with good response times.

GitHub delivers a strong ROI by improving developer productivity, accelerating software delivery, and reducing manual effort. It saves money and time while also reducing the number of employees needed due to faster development and better code quality through reviews and lower operational overhead from tool consolidation.

Before choosing GitHub, we evaluated other options such as Azure DevOps and AWS CodeCommit, but we found that GitHub is the best solution for our organization.

Some common challenges I face include repository management, access control, and workflow handling. A pull request may fail to merge because another developer changed the same code section, causing merge conflicts. Common challenges in GitHub include merge conflicts, branch management complexity, permission governance, and troubleshooting automation workflows.

My advice for others looking into using GitHub is that I would recommend it to organizations seeking source code management, team collaboration, and DevOps automation. Development teams can utilize GitHub to manage repositories, perform code reviews, track issues, and automate CI/CD workflows with GitHub Actions, making it a strong choice for organizations that want efficient software development workflows.

GitHub is a strong choice for every organization and is a very good platform for any coder or software developer. It is a fantastic platform for organizations from my perspective. I would rate this product a 9 out of 10.