Bitbucket's usability and integration with other tools could be improved somewhat. My other issue is that Bitbucket, GitHub, GitLab, and all the other ones use slightly different jargon for the same things. They should come up with a standard language for all these tools.

Bitbucket is only a code repository. In the SDLC, Bitbucket only helps to contain the code without involving CI or CD. It's very challenging for Bitbucket in the competitive world, where other solutions like GitLab provide a CI/CD mechanism within the same service. If I had two options, I would prefer GitLab because it's a code repository with continuous deployment features. For it to survive, it's a compulsion for Bitbucket to work with a CI like Jenkins, and there is a loose coupling between them with lots of chances of failures, along with the low-based change flow from committing the code to posting the production. By contrast, GitLab is a fast-based change approach.

A new feature I'd like to see in Bitbucket would be code merging. If multiple team members are using Bitbucket, Bitbucket needs to improve the visibility of changes for each developer. When we raise a pull request, Bitbucket should provide some additional UI feature that reflects which engines belong to which developers, and that would be pretty easy to incorporate in the main branch.

It would be beneficial to have a straightforward mechanism for integrating the initial tasks defined in Bitbucket with Jira when the need arises.

The tool offers a limited pipeline structure. In terms of improvements, the tool should provide more pipeline structures. On the security front, Bitbucket doesn't provide much, making it an area where improvements are required. With respect to code review, the tool needs to provide more options and provisions so that it is possible to link and perform code reviews without a lot of hesitations or shortfalls. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement in Bitbucket.

Bitbucket should integrate a static code analyzer. 

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.

Bitbucket can improve by integrating a tool to manage conflict code. This would save time.

The mandatory move to the cloud model is the biggest complaint. There are some minor things like customization, configuration, pricing, and limitations in general. I think the configuration can be improved because it is getting more complicated and not very well organized.

The product could be less expensive for small companies.

When users are given access for the first time, they should have some basic setups to help them specify their purposes. For example, when someone selects DevOps, they could get branches and trees created for dev, QN, and production deployment by default. Bitbucket could give access to the user from the front end to click and start working. The three setups mentioned would be very easy for organizations like Bitbucket to offer for free, for the user to create by default and just click and run.

Bitbucket must also incorporate the product with top-tier applications like Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Visual Studio. Other than Microsoft, Bitbucket could integrate with Oracle directly. Bitbucket could have these three foundation servers and Visual Studio at a very minimal cost, which would help businesses get some options. Bitbucket has to work in that market as well because this market has only one or two products already offered by top-tier companies.

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.

There could be more AI features included in the product.

The module component needs improvement. 

Bitbucket should come with code review pre-integrated, which would be better than integrating another tool into the solution.

The scalability for the cloud version can be improved.

I would like to see the tool's desktop version. 

There is room for improvement in the workflow. Other similar tools offer automation and more streamlined workflows, which Bitbucket currently lacks.

In additional features, I would like to see more low-code options for certain tasks. When we compare it to another solution like GitHub, in my opinion, Bitbucket could offer us more automation and actions in the future. This would be a valuable feature for improving our projects.

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 would like to see the security logs option on the tool directly. The current way to work with security logs is through an email protocol.

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

Bitbucket could improve pipeline building and deployment. Our deployments are not using the Bitbucket. Deployments we are going through Azure DevOps, but the integration is happening in Bitbucket.

The repository and the access levels could improve.

Bitbucket should consider having a CI/CD if they don’t have it already. Bitbucket’s stability could be improved.

Bitbucket could improve search and indexing capabilities. There is only basic searching available. There is only the ability to index the main branch but not the subbranches. The search capabilities are dodgy.

In a future release, the way they manage the permission of the records in the solution could be better. They fit well if you're only running one or two projects. If you have a lot of projects and records, the current permission model is not flexible. You have a challenge if you want to provide permissions across all the projects to be the same. Additionally, if you want to have specific permission there are limitations. There requires a lot of redundant work to accomplish what we want.

Fine tuning for procedures and features related to analytics and code validation is needed. 

There are some issues in obtaining licenses.

I would like to see the development operations side improved. The main challenge that we faced is implementing anything on the cloud. We need an improved automation feature for the cloud.

One of the areas the solution could improve on is when there is a merging conflict it is quite confusing. When I am having a merging conflict I get stuck on the page, then I need to search how to handle the particular problem. For example, finding what the commands are which can be used. 

I might not have the proper knowledge of it. However, the merging processes can be difficult and could be made easier. Overall there should be better documentation available. When I first started out it would have been very helpful because I had to search to find out how to use the solution.

In an upcoming release, the solution could improve the collaboration. Additionally, there should be some startup tool or features for whenever we have local changes or updates it will prevent us from submitting any change unless they have been removed locally. For example, 
there should be some sort of command tool that can remove my local code first and then checking it by taking code from the latest one to resolve it.

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

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

The UI could be a little better compared to competing solutions.  

Sometimes we struggle with searching on repositories. It is a bit challenging sometimes to pinpoint the code or repositories when just filtering by repositories. That search capability could be improved to become more intuitive. It should allow for, for example, searching for specific source files or repositories or searching the code inside the source files. That kind of flexibility would be helpful.

Of course, making the tool free would be great as well. Its cost is probably why it is not used very much in smaller companies.

I think the developers are constantly working on improving the pull requests support. It already works quite well, but there are still some issues with the support of the workflow and how to actually measure the time you spend on using reviews for pull requests compared to the time you actually use for doing the task. I am not really sure how that should be handled. I don't have a good solution for it yet. 

The installation of Bitbucket on our server was not as easy as other Atlassian products, so it is something that can be improved. The same is true for the upgrade process. I have upgraded it twice, and it is similar to the initial installation.

Currently, what's lacking in Bitbucket is the assignment feature or the feature of giving permissions to other users.

I would like to see the integration with some of the cloud service providers improved.

We should be able to choose the size of the RAM or container classification. We would like to see more infrastructure for the code. The scalability could be improved.

The code review and creation of requests need improvement. In GitHub it's much easier and broader and that makes everything easier to see.

The solution is not user-friendly. Right now, the solution is not so easy to understand. It needs to update its design and overall user experience.

It has a distinct tree type of structure that any branch that you need to create can only be a replication of, more or less, of the changes. You can not have a branch that is totally different from the root. This is an advantage but also a drawback. Being a developer, I would prefer to have these kinds of rules. But again, that does not allow me to use the same repository for a different kind of structure so I would need to create a new repository if I am changing the whole structure of the application. You can say both, it is a drawback or it is plus of the application.

Another thing, the time it takes for the repository to get downloaded and be available increases if you are using the cloud version. The only thing we can improve is the bandwidth. If you have low bandwidth and you have a relatively large repository, say more than one GB, it will take a lot of time.