Bitbucket Server Reviews

When working on code development or maintenance, the initial step involves pushing the code to a central server, to manage code changes and additions. Bitbucket Server is commonly used for pushing and pulling code and plays a pivotal role in this process.

Its standout features are the seamless integration with various intelligent tools and its user-friendly nature.

There are instances when I interact with Bitbucket and encounter a situation where I've pushed changes to the website server. However, when I access my branch on the website server, I notice that the changes are not immediately reflected. Enhancing the real-time reflection of changes online is an area that could benefit from improvement.

I have been working with it for one year.

It offers good stability capabilities.

It demonstrates high scalability, which is essential for my company's substantial workforce, consisting of approximately eight to nine thousand employees. Within my team, we rely on it as our version control system, and nearly two hundred team members actively use it.

In the rare event that we faced downtime, the admin and other teams promptly addressed and resolved the issue.

Neutral

Before we switched to Bitbucket, the company was working with GitHub on the server. Bitbucket is known for its user-friendliness, and personally, I find it very easy to work with.

The initial setup is quite easy.

I would recommend it as it serves as an excellent platform for code maintenance. I would rate it eight out of ten.

The use case for Bitbucket is a good repository manager for the code base. It is one type of version control system on the cloud.

The platform's most beneficial feature is the repository for our code base. It helps with versioning, Git collaboration, merging, and cloning. It can efficiently promote code to different environments, like development to UAT and production.

The platform's integration with other cloud services should be improved.

I have been using Bitbucket Server for four years. 

The product stability is excellent on the cloud. I rate the stability on-premises at about nine out of ten.

The technical support services are good. 

The product doesn't require any setup when deployed on the cloud. Whereas, we have to follow a deployment process for the on-premises version. 

Pull request features are essential for verifying repositories on the cloud and should be pulled to the local workstation. Pull requests (PR) help merge branches and are part of Git collaboration tools like Bitbucket and GitHub.

The current trend in our industry is towards highly integrated systems. Most companies are choosing their software development lifecycle tools based on integration capabilities. So, integration is a key focus right now.

I rate Bitbucket Server nine out of ten. 

It would have been better to use Bitbucket Server if it had something similar to the concept called GitHub Actions since it allows GitHub to provide seamless integration of CI/CD pipelines.

I have experience with Bitbucket Server. I am a customer of the product.

It is a stable solution

It is an easily scalable solution.

I don't have experience with the solution's technical support. I rate the technical support a seven to eight out of ten.

Neutral

I have experience with GitHub and GitLab. Compared to GitHub and GitLab, Bitbucket Server provides better security levels of verification. Bitbucket Server's pricing options are cheaper than GitHub and GitLab. In general, GitHub is much better than Bitbucket Server. Bitbucket Server's prices are cheaper than GitHub.

The product's initial setup phase was neither a difficult nor easy process, making it a moderate process. GitHub is much easier from a deployment perspective, especially from the CI/CD angle for continuous integrations and deployments. Security-wise, Bitbucket Server offers some additional steps allowing you to use a secured authentication process, like single sign-on, authenticated sign-on, or additional two-factor verification, which is better in Bitbucket Server compared to GitHub.

Bitbucket Server enhances collaboration in our company's development workflow since its users are developers who use CodeCommit. Areas like release planning and code movement from development to integration to testing and from production to deployment are managed with Bitbucket Server. Most of the code repositories are also on Bitbucket Server.

The features of Bitbucket Server that I found most beneficial for source code management stem from its integration capabilities with code repositories that are supposed to be from different branches. Basically, integration is easier in Bitbucket Server. Deployment is also pretty seamless across from Bitbucket Server's side. Fetching the code from the repo branch and deploying it is easy.

Bitbucket Server's pull request feature impacted our company's code review process since any kind of difference in the code could be analyzed more easily. The branches could be analyzed better, while the CI/CD integration is also pretty easy with Bitbucket Server. The tool shows you the whole branch of how the code is being used. The data lineage is pretty seamless.

There is a separate team in my company that takes care of the maintenance part of the product.

The integration of Bitbucket Server with other Atlassian products improves our company's project management since we get to know the status once we commit the code as the CodeCommit status is usually reflected in Jira, and it is easily observable allowing users to see what changes have happened. Users can get a unified view of each task or each project, along with details on what code is associated with which step and how Jira commits across. The tool provides a single unified view for code management and project planning.

Bitbucket Server's permission management helped maintain the security of our company's code base, as it is an area that has to do more with the authentication and authorization levels.

I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

Bitbucket Server serves as our source code management and version control platform. Like Azure Repository, we utilize it to store and manage our source code. The integration of Bitbucket into our Software Development Life Cycle process is crucial. However, it's important to note that the product does not provide code approval functionalities. We may need to employ additional tools, such as Jenkins, for code approvals. Additional tools from Jira and Jenkins help in the CI/CD process. 

Bitbucket Server supports code collaboration by providing commands developers can use to check in code. Through comments, developers can specify the purpose of the code check-in. Additionally, Bitbucket allows tagging of code for releases.

Bitbucket Server can experience performance issues when pushing a large amount of code. This process may take a considerable amount of time.

I have been using the product for three to four years. 

The product is generally stable, with occasional hiccups or errors that might occur.

The solution can be scaled vertically or horizontally as per the requirement. My company has eight to ten users. 

The tool's support is standard. They respond as soon as possible. 

The tool's deployment requires expertise since its environment is on-premise. To deploy Bitbucket Server, you must run the standalone executable file and set up the database server since it stores metadata in the database. Additionally, you'll require a shared folder to keep the actual code. Configuration of URLs and a server proxy are necessary for the deployment process. There are one to two engineers who manage the tool. 

The solution's deployment requires a consultant. 

The tool's licensing costs are yearly. Prices can become expensive if you have a lot of users. 

The product is good, but its features are limited. It is a good choice if the requirement is solely to manage source code. It handles source code management, providing stable check-in and check-out functionality and features like comments and tagging. You can set permissions at the project level, repository level, or branch level. Project-level permissions apply to all branches and repositories within the project. Repository-level permissions are specific to the branches within that repository. I rate it a seven out of ten. 

The solution can easily integrate with Jira and other Atlassian products. 

We use the tool as a code repository. It is also used for tracking tasks, logging issues, solving issues, and CI/CD deployment.

We don't have any issues in terms of performance and stability. The product has its own tracking facility or features, although it is limited. We use Jira to work around the limitation.

There’s no integration of the tasks defined in Bitbucket that go to Jira. We define the task on Jira and then connect it to Bitbucket. The task or the issues defined on Bitbucket must be transported to Jira. The tasks on Bitbucket must be automatically integrated into Jira.

I have been using the solution since 2016.

The tool is stable. I rate the stability a ten out of ten. We don’t have any problems with stability.

We don't have any problem with scalability. We're able to create many projects and repositories. We don’t have many developers. We only have around 20 people working on a particular repository in Bitbucket. It's easy to manage.

We have had no problems with support. Most of the technical issues we query are about the Bitbucket pipeline and integrating or deploying the application to different platforms like AWS or Azure.

The setup is straightforward. It takes less than an hour to set up a repository. We’re using Bitbucket Cloud for the developers to use the repository. Some developers would use the traditional Git client on their workstations, and some would use the GUI-based Git interface to communicate with Bitbucket.

Our code is secure. It is easy to collaborate with our developers. It is easy to monitor their tasks. It's easy to deploy the application because everything is automated. It's cheaper to use the cloud.

Before, we acquired GitLab licenses, which we implemented on-premise. It required a lot of maintenance. We had to regularly ensure that the GitLab deployment was always updated and secured. It needed a lot of monitoring and maintenance.

It is better to use Bitbucket. We do not have to maintain and monitor the server regularly. We can focus on using the product and storing our code.

We're paying a monthly subscription per user. We pay around $6 per user. We also pay for Jira for task monitoring and management.

We have moved the task management to Jira. We use Jira to define all the necessary tasks properly and do the necessary monitoring. We allow access to our customers only to review issues. Teams that need to perform DevOps tasks using Bitbucket must buy the premium subscription. The free edition has a limited number of users and features. We will not be able to utilize its capabilities fully. Overall, I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

In my company, we use Bitbucket Server for managing the repositories since we tend to have different repositories for a particular project, like a back-end, front-end, and the UI, while sometimes everything remains the same.

An organization has to have a repository either way, and it is better to go with Bitbucket Server since it is one of the main tools everybody uses in the market to manage their repositories.

The solution's most valuable feature is that it is simpler in terms of code changes since you just have to map it to a sourcetree and commit changes, after which the user can go for check-in and check-out. Bitbucket Server's version control is amazing.

We had issues in terms of logs, URLs, and cloning the repositories, which is the same issue we keep facing in our company though we manage to resolve it each time. The aforementioned problems make the solution a bit tricky, so it would be great if Bitbucket could provide users with a smoother approach or process when they face an issue. At the moment, there are not many details on how to proceed with the troubleshooting if one of the users faces an issue with the product.

I have been using Bitbucket Server for four years. I use the solution's latest version.

It is an amazingly stable solution.

I won't be able to comment on the product's scalability since it is a repository used in our company. I am unsure of how to scale up Bitbucket Server in my company, and I know that the repository has nothing to do with this storage space in the product. Our company has not encountered use cases where we need to scale up the repository.

The architect developers, consisting of around eight to nine members in our company, use the solution since they have access to it.

In our company, we contacted the technical support team when there was a need to know the endpoints, where you have to configure it properly and authenticate it. We had faced some cloning and access issues, and as of now, these issues have been sorted out.

Bitbucket Server's technical support team was good. In our company, we also have different technical support teams specifically dedicated to each of the products we use.

The initial setup of the tool was very easy.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

My team does not manage the maintenance and deployments of the solution. For maintenance and deployments, we speak with Jira team. For each of the products that we use in our organization, we have a separate team to manage a particular product. There is a separate team to manage products that fall under Microsoft Office, while another team manages AWS products used in our company. We have to reach out to Jira and raise a ticket to let them know the products we need from their catalog before coming up with the list of what we want and submitting it to Jira, which then provides the licenses for each user.

My suggestion to those planning to buy the solution is to use the product to its full extent since it is a strong and stable product.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

I use the solution in my company for traditional projects. Now, my company plans to move our projects to GitLab since it provides a single UI for everything.

Bitbucket Server creates a branch and is useful for authentication, commits, and pushing changes.

Bitbucket Server is a standalone tool or server. My company also uses Jira. In our company, there are different kinds of tools linked together by webhooks, and we use Jenkins to run Bitbucket Server. GitLab provides an integrated solution, so everything is available in a single product. With Bitbucket Server, you can see the codes, configure the pipelines, and you can merge a pull request. Bitbucket Server may be even better than GitHub. With GitLab, you have a single solution in one place, so it is not scattered in many places, like in the case of Jira, Jenkins, or Bitbucket Server, making it a better option for our company. From an improvement perspective, Bitbucket Server should make everything available as a single solution.

I have experience with Bitbucket Server.

In our company, Bitbucket Server has a backend link to Jira. When Jira is down, Bitbucket Server is also down.

It is an okay tool in terms of scalability. Though I am unsure, I feel that Oracle DB is used in the backend. In our company, when we have to create new reports in the backend database, you just increase the hard disk. Another team in my company controls the aforementioned area associated with the product, so I don't know it in detail.

Considering that all the developers in my company use the product, I would say that around 30 percent of the people in my company use the solution.

My company decided that since Zscaler is on the cloud, we need a local on-premises server.

The product's initial setup phase is complex. GitLab is better to deal with when it comes to the setup phase since it uses the YAML script. With GitLab, one can use templates for almost all projects, so a given project can be dealt with based on the templates, and sometimes the templates might have to be updated a little bit. In Jenkins, every project is treated separately, so you have to create every project on Jenkinsfile. It cannot be based on some templates, and I feel it may be a little bit complex and not as easy as GitLab.

One needs to pay towards the licensing charges associated with the product.

I am planning to move to GitLab.

In terms of the most valuable feature of the tool for our company's current collaboration, I would say that since the product is deployed on an on-premises model, you can easily control the branching strategy, merge strategies, and code review.

The pull request feature of the tool streamlines the code review process in our company, after which we invite some people to review it and then change the policies if needed. All people involved in the process of reviewing should provide approval based on which the company can delete or merge branches.

For the improvement of CI/CD pipelines, my company uses Jenkins to check the pipelines from the Bitbucket Server. In the pipeline, our company can link to Jira or Confluence and deal with checkout, clone, compile, and then do the test and generate reports.

I recommend the product to others, especially small companies because you can get a cloud solution for your organization, and also, it is similar to GitLab and GitHub. One can work with Bitbucket Server, Jira, and GitLab, along with CI/CD pipelines. Small companies also need not set up on-premises servers and should prefer cloud services.

In terms of benefits, I feel that many companies are moving to Bitbucket Server since it can be deployed on an on-premises model at a time when everything is being moved to the cloud. GitLab can be used by those who want to move to the cloud.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

The product’s most valuable features are private repositories and the ability to work as a proxy for implementing CI/CD pipelines.

The product interface consists of multiple features that are complicated to navigate for new users. They could make it easier to access and introduce templates with sample code for beginners to understand Kubernetes deployment.

We have been using Bitbucket Server for eight years.

It is a perfectly stable platform.

We have 37,000 Bitbucket Server users in our organization. We plan to increase the usage.

We use Jira and Confluence.

The initial setup is simple for me as I am an experienced developer. For our private cloud setup, the process was streamlined, given the enterprise-level support and production coverage.

Bitbucket significantly improves our code review and collaboration processes by providing private repositories as a default feature. This specific feature was not available in GitHub at the time of our selection. 

We utilize a standard Gitflow with feature branches, including branches like bugfixes, hotfixes, and more. It makes the request mechanism easy to use.

Its integration capabilities with other tools have been useful. However, the integration with Slack needs improvement. It provides satisfactory performance and scalability for our site.

I recommend it to others and rate it a nine out of ten.