Bitbucket Reviews

Bitbucket can be deployed on the cloud or on-premise.

We use Bitbucket to set up an end-to-end integration system.

We use Bitbucket for Jira, Confluence, and Jenkins and we have an automation pipeline. Whenever the coaching is done in Bitbucket we run an automation pipeline from the build, create installations, and tests all in one pipeline. It is done automatically. 

Bitbucket could improve its security. For example, the user access security could improve.

I have been using Bitbucket for approximately six years.

Bitbucket is stable. However, every one or two months it crashes, it depends on the usage. When Jira is down after a long weekend Bitbucket might not be working. There could be other reasons it is not working and not necessarily the solution's fault.

The scalability of Bitbucket is good.

We have a lot of developers working and we are moving the solution locally to the cloud next year. We plan to increase the usage of the solution.

I rate the support from Bitbucket a four out of five.

Positive

I have used CVS previously.

The initial setup of Bitbucket can be complex. It depends on what you are using it for. For example, when I was using Jenkins I had to set up a lot of scripts to link all the tasks together for it to run automatically.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Bitbucket an eight out of ten.

Bitbucket's most valuable feature is the web interface, which is useful compared to other tools, has a lot of features, and is intuitive. 

I've been using Bitbucket for two years.

Bitbucket is very stable.

Bitbucket's scalability is good for a single location.

We used an in-house team.

I understand Bitbucket's cost is on the higher side.

Before implementing Bitbucket, people should be clear on the tools they will have to adopt based on their needs. It goes well with other Atlassian solutions like Jira or Bamboo, but integration with other third-party solutions is more complex. I would give Bitbucket a rating of nine out of ten.

It's a source control system. We have lots of source code and we wanted to move to Git and there are a lot of different Git solutions out there, including free stuff. But we liked the features of Bitbucket, because it takes off some of the sharp edges, so to speak. It's a more professional version than the free open source Git that's widely available.

We have a couple of different tools that allow us to tie source code changes to report bugs. It's integrated with our bug tracking system and also integrated with our requirement tracking system. So we have better facilities. We could integrate these solutions using command line "hooks", but when we do it all manually, it's not likely to happen.

Even with the automation, we've had some situations where we've had mistakes. Developers have integrated code into the wrong place by mistake, so there's a fairly steep learning curve.

Being in the cloud and using large repositories can be slow. They should improve synchronizing very large repositories.

I have been using Bitbucket for six months. 

It's pretty stable. We just had one incident where one of our developers somehow got access to somebody else's code using his own credentials.  He logged in like he normally does but could not see our source code; all he could see was somebody else's source code instead. That's a security problem. They cleaned it up somehow and the next time he logged in, there was no issue.   

We don't have any issues with scalability. And no issues with availability today. It's on the cloud that you look for is, it's accessible worldwide, it's always working and you don't have to rely on your IT to keep it running.

There are around 100 users in our company. Their roles are Developers, DevOps, and QA.

We use several different source control systems and it's a big deal to change.  All the groups that were interested have now made the jump. 

I haven't contacted customer support. When we had the incident with the employee logging in with his credentials, we called support and told them this one guy had a problem. Other than that incident it's been stable and available. No real complaints.

The setup was kind of complex. We started out with some simple examples and that was easy enough. But then when we went to migrate real code repositories, we had to get into what they call large file storage, which was complex to set up.

The deployment took about a month with a small focus group and I would say it probably took two or three months to get everybody comfortable using it.

We use it on the cloud. It's the latest and greatest. You don't have to pay for maintenance and you get automatic updates and hardware and backups and all that nice stuff. I paid a little premium for it, but you get a lot of benefits.

Licensing is on a monthly basis, it's available on their website. They have a free version, a pro version and then they have an enterprise version.  The Pro version is kind of the middle of the road for about $7 per user per month.

I would advise getting some Git training.  Something like 85% of all developers use Git. So it's like the defacto standard for source control.  Bitbucket is a brand of Git that has some nice features on top of the core functionality.

The biggest lesson learned was, we should've done a little bit more training for the developers. It was very informal and should've probably been more formal, not necessarily sending everybody to university or a class, but a little more hand-holding.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. I give it this rating because there was the integration with the other tools.

We have around 700 users for this product in our company and a maintenance team of four people. I've recently put in an order to increase that to 1,000 users in the near future and hope to bump this up to 2,000 users down the track. We are end users of this solution and I'm the Head of the DevOps Engineering Center.

It's the code check in and code version controlling.

There is room for improvement in terms of the branching strategies. Instead of leaving the branching strategy for users to decide, Bitbucket could provide some default branching options for users to adopt. For now, users need to configure branching strategies from scratch as there's no template for the code branching. If they came up with a couple of default budgeting strategies, it could be used immediately. For example, there's a branching strategy called GitFlow, which is widely used in the market. It could be included in the tool as a template and adopted quickly and used immediately rather than having to create it from scratch. 

Secondly, when it comes to the code reviewer, there's no way to restrict the number of reviewers, it can only be modified by the project managers on the fly and we don't want the project managers modifying the code reviewers. It should be restricted to the tool administrators. This is another gap in the solution. They really need to give out of the box integrations to all DevOps tools and the cloud tools without the need for additional plugins.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

This is a stable solution and has a very good backup mechanism. There's only an issue if you don't have your backup running and there is a hardware failure or if the database goes out of sync. If that happens, recovery of Bitbucket is very, very complex.We encountered an issue as a result of some incorrect commands triggered by our engineer and it was very difficult to recover. We had to engage the Atlassian product engineers and they also had problems. Eventually, we had to recover each and every line of code manually. If you're using Bitbucket as a code repository or a version controlling tool, users need to ensure that the necessary backup for the file system and databases is configured appropriately. If not, then your recovery will be impacted.

It's a very scalable solution especially if it's hosted on cloud. The only thing is that the developers need to be aware of the number of code branches that they are creating, and carry out the proper housekeeping of the code. If that doesn't happen then the growth of Bitbucket will be enormous, and it might encounter some disk utilization related issues. I would suggest not to rely fully on the tool's capability for scaling up and down. Users need to be aware of what needs to be cleaned and housekeeping required. That aside, it's very scalable.

The technical support of the solution is problematic. If you subscribe to 24/7 support then you're fine. Otherwise they're available eight hours a day, not necessarily during your business hours. Unfortunately, there is no phone number to call the customer care directly which is frustrating. The only option is to raise a support ticket and then wait for them to reply; most of the time they try to avoid the calls and do most of the communication through the support ticket, which is very painful. I've worked for other large companies where they provide a dedicated phone number for customers and escalation of the ticket can be requested. Atlassian is a very poor support model

I've been impacted a couple of times. Even if you put in an escalation request you only get a reply when they get to it and turn on the escalation in their own sweet time. It's very difficult and frustrating. Instead of going for the Atlassian support, we paid a third party vendor, an Atlassian support partner, and we took an annual maintenance contract with them.

Atlassian don't want their customers dependent on them but want them to take up support services from their preferred support partners. There are different levels and if you need something urgently, they'll suggest you contact their premier support partners. It's not a good model and I would rate them poorly in this regard.

I still use Jira and Confluence and have done for many years. It's the same support model for all tools, just like Bitbucket.

The initial setup is not very complex. It took us about a week, perhaps less.

The price of Bitbucket is on the high side, but I think that's because of the tool's capability, which is justifiable. If you're purchasing for a smaller number of users then the license cost per user is definitely expensive, but if you buy a greater number of licenses, then it likely becomes a little cheaper.

Atlassian is a very clever company. They sell the base product a little cheaper, and on top of that they sell many important plugins or add-ons which you need but which are also expensive. You might think you have a reasonably good deal but the base product will not have some of the important features and if you look at the final cost, it's a little expensive. But the tool has good capabilities and very good features not explored by many other Git based version controlling tools like GitLab or GitHub.

I would have given Atlassian a nine out of 10, but because of the technical support issues and pricing, I would give them a seven out of 10 rating. I wouldn't even complain about the cost but they really need to improve their support model. 

Actually, I have an E-commerce product on that solution and store it there. I deploy the product for each customer and they use it. I'm trying to use the cloud system as my center for distribution. I use Bitbucket for hosting the core code.

I'm using the private cloud because I don't want to have my source public on the internet. I'm very happy about that solution because it's precisely enough for me and my needs. Being private was very important for me, and working with the product's GUI user interface is a good experience. 

While it is a good and useful product for my application, there are several disadvantages to the system. One thing I have seen is that you can't add some better features to the wiki system. For example, better attachment and document management could be more useful. We actually use another system for our documents because the document management system was not suited for us. Maybe they can improve the wiki side of that product. The issue tracking also can be better than it is now.

The wiki side of the system can use the most enhancement. When I want to use the wiki, I have many problems writing the source code in different code languages. We are creating a web program. Because it is a web project, we want to use, for example, JavaScript and we use CSS. Then we want to use Java for the back-end. When we use different languages, we have a problem deploying them with that system.

Sorting documents is an issue, and also issue tracking over in the system is not very professional. If you compare this product with JIRA it is not very good in these capacities. There is a lot of room for improvement. Another comparison could be made with teamwork.com which is better at these things. We used teamwork for a situation where we needed both better document handling and better issue tracking. We wanted to have something like GitLab with all the features of a project management tool.

Another problem that I had involved issues with CICD (Continuous Integration Continuous Deployment). I could not configure it easily. I did not try to resolve the issue and left it for the future. Maybe it was because of the user interface or maybe because the documentation was not so good, but the CICD pipeline wasn't very easy for us to use. Maybe just adding more helpful documentation for that feature will solve the issue.

The limit on the number of users became a problem for us because we live in a country in the Middle East. The issue of spending more money and having additional costs is a really big concern for us. For example, for being the Turkish leader in the field, what we were able to charge the customer compared to what we are paying for services is not cheap. That makes it difficult to make a decent profit, re-invest and grow.

Other additional features I would like to see can help expand how we work with customers. One example is adding a notebook. There is no notebook in the product at all to write notes for your users and customers to remember details about them and have them available.

Another example would be to add a feature that allows you to integrate and converse with GitLab. Sometimes we need to write some notes for something inside GitLab, but it would be good to have the availability to add from both products and have them integrated. 

If BitBucket had online chat and online help for premium users, it will be best for users who need to get support. Programmers want to focus on the code. For example, if I want to configure something in my pipeline or in a product I am building, I may need to read 30 articles to understand what is happening on the system in order to program it. If I am in a rush and I am a programmer, I don't have enough time for that. So if BitBucket had an online chat system for support to help the developers, that could speed up development and access to support itself.

I can understand these things may not be the primary purpose of the BitBucket solution, but maybe if these things can be added the solution would be more independent, better integrated and would be nearly perfect.

This solution is perfectly stable. We never had a problem with it, and after five years it is still running as we expect. I love this program for that. 

Many software companies are trying to scale up on the cloud. BitBucket should add some features to make some better use of the cloud and other integrations. For example, if you want to migrate your product to AWS (Amazon Web Services), the AWS will try to send the source code to a codecomp system. Maybe you have something that you do not want to migrate from the source to Amazon. It would be nice to have controls for that. When you commit the code to BitBucket it would be good to be able to also commit from BitBucket to use AWS. 

In our company, we had ten proficient programmers working on the project and we have good clients in Turkey. We could scale the program as well as the number of users and our market or in other ways. I think I am confident in that. So the product is scalable in many ways.

The company can improve access to technical support. Some of the documentation was not so good. We did not use it much.

From my point of view, the setup for the Atlassian product was better than other products but had less to offer as a system. I tried to switch to TFS (Team Foundation Server), a Microsoft product, and I couldn't use that because I loved this user interface system in the BitBucket product more than TFS.

The first upload of our project was in 2015. I uploaded that code. It wasn't very hard to use the solution or do the deployment. Some of the configuration is not as easy or as good as it could be. The system has changed, but since the implementation, I have made no changes in three years.

In a way, I did evaluate other options but it was after I was already working with BitBucket. I tried to use TFS and GitLab, but I couldn't add my existing support to their systems. I loved this support system that I had with BitBucket — the system was very good. But looked at other solutions because I wanted some other features that these other products claimed to have, like issue tracking and a better wiki. These were things which I couldn't get directly in the BitBucket service. But I had gotten used to the excellent GUI in BitBucket and thought it was almost perfect. There were some things missing but the solution was perfectly enough for us. I decided there was no need to change to TFS or the GIT system after the comparison.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as an eight. I love this product, so actually eight may actually not be good enough for the rating. On the other hand, there is a lot that could be incorporated or improved.

We use Bitbucket for version controlling our source code, and also CI/CD was utilizing Bitbucket pipelines. We have automated build pipelines, daily master build pipelines, and daily releases.

It nicely integrates with Atlassian Jira, making it easy to find relevant branches and PRs. We also have Teams integration for Atlassian products like Confluence.

It has a nice user experience to review PRs and provides great pipeline features, integrating well with other Atlassian products.

Bitbucket pipelines could be enhanced by adding scalability and caching for images. If we could get the cloud-native benefits to Bitbucket pipeline like in Tekton, it would be great.

I have used the solution for about two years.

The solution is stable.

Our main repository gets around 200 PRs per day, and this load has limited Bitbucket pipelines due to steep limitations.

Customer service is actually done by the R&D and Deployment team. I'm not really aware of those details.

Positive

We moved from Bitbucket to Tekton because our main repository gets two hundred PRs per day, which presented a load on Bitbucket pipelines with step limitations. Moreover, we do not have local image caching, resulting in frequent pulls from Azure Container Registry, leading to Azure's rate limits.

We compared Bitbucket with Tekton, noting the benefits and limitations of each.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

My company uses Bitbucket for version control and codes that we use for transforming data.

I haven't gone deep into all of the features of Bitbucket. I use Bitbucket as a basic repository in my company, so I don't use it to deal with the CI/CD pipeline.

I haven't encountered any issues with the solution since I am familiar with the basic Git workflows. Most of my criticisms are directed towards Git and not Bitbucket specifically, so I can say that it can be a challenge to onboard new people who need to learn how to use the commit code in Bitbucket. In general, the aforementioned flaw is not a fault related to Bitbucket but more of a problem caused by Git and the knowledge gap that new users experience. Bitbucket can be made more user-friendly for new users.

Every solution nowadays makes use of AI to make their workflows easier for its users. Bitbucket doesn't currently offer AI functionalities. Though I am unsure how AI features can be incorporated into Bitbucket, I would like to see Bitbucket with AI functionalities.

I have been using Bitbucket for a year. My company is a customer of Bitbucket.

I have not faced any stability problems with the solution.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

There are around ten people in my company who use Bitbucket.

Apart from Bitbucket, I have experience with GitHub. GitHub and Bitbucket are almost the same. I don't have any preference between GitHub and Bitbucket since I don't use the tools to their fullest capabilities. I use the aforementioned tools as a basic repository in my company.

The initial setup of Bitbucket is simple.

The solution is deployed on the cloud. The development part of the solution is done on an on-premises model.

I recommend the solution to those who plan to use it.

I haven't explored the entire solution yet, so it would be best for me to rate the solution a ten out of ten after I do a deep dive into the product's capabilities. I rate the overall solution an eight to nine out of ten.

Bitbucket, like GitHub, serves as a repository for coding and facilitates integration management and version control. It has features related to these aspects.

One of Bitbucket's notable features is its ability to integrate with other addressing solutions.

I believe continuous improvement is always a good goal to strive for. 

In future releases, more integration is always a valuable aspect to consider.

I used Bitbucket for about three months. 

It seems to be quite scalable.

I was familiar with GitHub as another option.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

I would definitely recommend using the solution because one of the great features of Bitbucket is its compatibility with other solutions like Atlassian and others. I highly recommend it.