Logging in from multiple places has always been terrible. I'll be logged in on Mac and available but randomly get emails as if I'm offline. I'll be online on my phone and get e-mails. I wan't emails of messages when I'm actually offline and not logged in but HipChat doesn't seem to care and emails me anyways sometimes. The option to turn off email notifications isn't very configurable either. Its off or on.
Look at the release notes for windows and mac and search for reconnection. Just about every release has a fix for reconnecting going back to 2014.
https://www.hipchat.com/release_notes/mac https://www.hipchat.com/release_notes/windows
Ha, try using it in Linux!
What Git GUI do you prefer?
Lightning talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ccCNQaTJ10
also, if you are a vimmer use spacemacs to get out of the box, nicely configured vim.
Definitely my favourite client, and OSS to boot. I can't really think of much I'd want changed to improve it.
Not really a fair comparison: SourceTree targets professional devs while GitHub Desktop caters to making git + GitHub simple for beginners. I like the client personally, but it isn't a daily driver. Beyond absolute basics the feature set is totally different.
No problems with paying for a product, but the way they went about the switch left a sour taste, so I went back to SourceTree.
We have quite some exciting features and additions on the roadmap!
In combination with GitUp, it's still a great tool, but it could need better QA so that even edge cases are solid.
I frequently pick through dozens of lines of code for a granular commit history, sometimes backing up a commit, saving a commit as a patch, (then) amending some lines to a previous commit, staging/unstaging non-consecutive additions and deletions, etc. and I've not experienced problems.
Renaming repos is straightforward but doing so does not rename the directory in the filesystem. It only renames it in the Tower UI.
To rename the repo root directory, one should copy the origin root directory naming it to the new name and then run
git init --bare name_of_directory
The only trouble I've experienced is deleting branches and tags from Github. Not sure if it's Github or Tower, but deleting those items and then recreating them often yields an error that the item still exists.
(In my defense, the process established at work requires a deploy of a tag to STG once every 2 weeks, but the tag must be deployed to STG every week, leading to a situation where the STG tag must be deleted and recreated. Come to think of it, I'm going to suggest we change our process.)
I'm not affiliated with Tower except as a satisfied user.
EDIT: grammar, formatting, readability.
My biggest gripe is that Tower 1 use to display all your stashes on the side (expanded, not collapsed) by name/date. Tower 2 hides all that information from being easily viewable. I use to use stashes quite a lot, but since switching over I've significantly decreased my usage of it.
EDIT: now that I think about it, there are a few buggy things about it that are frequent but are just an annoyance, not a hindrance.
It is incredible slow for many operations.
My solution is to use command line git for most operations and SourceTree just for visualizing the repository. It's pretty fine for this.
edit: Yes right now there might not be an exact competitor but in a few years it could easily match everything Jira does.
I'd think Trello and Asana are much closer competitors. JIRA is like an over engineered spaceship with more features than anyone could learn in a lifetime. Comparatively Trello functions more like a Prius. Priuses and spaceships don't compete.
JIRA shines in areas that (a) have workflow and (b) require repeatable processes across a number of people.
Once you have 20+ people on a project, you need repeatable processes.
In cases like bug tracking, project management, customer service, help desks, HR onboarding and hundreds others you need workflow.
Trello shines in areas where you have (a) small teams or (b) require ad-hoc semi-structured data.
In small teams, even if repeatable process would help you, it's not worth the cost of setting up a system - you achieve it by social means.
Trello also has many, many use-cases where you want to start something quick, or personal. In this case it really shines, with near-zero friction to get started.
Scott, CEO Atlassian
But the folks who have a working process and a large number of people and teams are usually complaining the other way round: that no tool supports their workflow. Which is where JIRA shines. I don't know another tool that can be configured to such ridiculous detail.
The Trello acquisition makes total sense because it fills in that gap that JIRA is bad at.
You might not view them as that, but they are, well were.
Don't get me wrong – I like them both. When I have to plan out personal projects, Trello is great. During the day, we use JIRA. The use cases are different, and the products are both suitable. I'm madly bemused that people look at the very, very surface layer of the UI (oh look, it has cards in columns!) and assume the products are the same.
In the Innovator's Dilemma sense, absolutely.
Trello covers a market that was not really served by any Atlassian products (or rather, market segments that weren't well treated).
Trello has a huge active following, and a lot of users who would otherwise not know Atlassian products.
Getting any sort of proper cross-selling going on would be great for their ecosystem long-term. People might start at Trello, but go to Atlassian products as their team scales and need other coordination tools.
I don't think you spend $425 million to kill a "competitor", especially when that competitor has a lot of paying customers anyways.
The rarer definition, which is that a company actually shuts down the product and doesn't make an attempt to migrate its users, strikes me as something more typical for a small startup that has not yet reached real market validation, but which has very impressive R&D.
http://www.cgchannel.com/2014/03/softimage-died-to-make-max-...
https://www.change.org/p/autodesk-save-softimage
http://web.archive.org/web/20140519212219/http://e-roja.com/...
Not trying to start the classic hg vs git debate, just saying that it's great to have the option.
Bitbucket Server is written in Java and bitbucket.org is written in Python.
I was dumbfounded when I found out they were two separate codebases.
(hate it when companies do this)
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/repo/hg/
Mercurial is very important for Facebook, Mozilla, Google, and others. The disparaging "legacy" monicker might be a good way to feel justified to not have to learn about it, but it's not dying software that is no longer getting updates.
Check our RhodeCode for Enterprise SCM tool that supports Mercurial too.
Nice and simple.
I suppose that what they are buying, among other things, is a significant paying customer base. These customers can be sold more products, e.g. Bitbucket / Bamboo, provided that Trello integrates with them well enough, or will in the future.
Just curious as to what you think Github could do to fix this. I have a list of wishes and I'm always curious what other people have.
* ZenHub - Agile GitHub Project Management Software || https://www.zenhub.com/
GitHub + Marker for bugs.
* Marker - Visual Feedback & Bug Reporting Tools for Web Professionals || https://getmarker.io/
GitHub + Unito + Asana even... for clients to get some pretty dashboards without getting bogged down... this works great too.
* Unito - Connect your project management tools and become your team's collaboration hero || https://unito.io/
I love how many things play nice with GitHub now.
It also means that someone submitting bugs, say from customer support, must try and figure out where the issue is in order to log it. It's a huge hassle and most just give up and ping an engineer on Slack which is incredibly inefficient.
Trello gets around this by letting you create a "master" issue and link to the individual repository issues. It means engineering can have a bug inbox and triage from there. Still a huge pain and not ideal.
Github also has the "Projects" feature, but it is useless IMO due to the above issue - I wish projects would work at an organisation level.
https://github.com/blog/2272-introducing-projects-for-organi...
* Merge checks
* Build status (finally...)
* Audit logs
* Inline editing
Nothing that keeps it above Github, but they always seem to maintain feature parity.
/not a bitbucket shill
//just don't like inaccurate comments.
https://bitbucket.org/site/master/issues/2874/ability-to-sea...
That's incredible.
Why would you want to use such a limited diff tool at all? Personally, I use the best diff tool that I can find and so far that's BeyondCompare from Scooter Software.
Personally, I pay for the best tools because they're worth the money. For that tool in particular, I paid $60 over 3 or 4 years ago. It's practically nothing compared to some of the other tools that we use.
I wonder if they were slow on updating their site because of Sourcetree, which I personally love (especially since it is a cross-platoform [Mac/Win] GUI client).
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/b0b9b3df27d100a975b...
syntax highlighting would be like this, where keywords, function calls, and variables are all different colors.
I just checked our Bitbucket. There's no syntax highlighting for any of our used languages for diffs. There is no option to enable or disable it. When you do a search for it, it's still an open issue in BitBucket's public issue tracker[0].
If you've got some wizardry working that isn't an external script, hook it up.
[0]: https://bitbucket.org/site/master/issues/8673/add-syntax-hig...
We've added 4 big features just in the last 12 months
+ Pipelines + Git LFS + Smart Mirroring + Merge Checks
More here just from Oct 2016: https://blog.bitbucket.org/2016/10/12/scaling-in-bitbucket-c...
Not to mention other features like 2FA, Projects, Snippets, Bitbucket Connect, etc. in the last 2 years
If you do a fair comparison and compare the entire Atlassian suite to Gitlab, then you see that the Atlassian suite is far more powerful for most enterprise use cases, which typically involve highly customized workflows and reporting in Jira. The integrations with Jira, making it incredibly easy for higher ups to follow overall progress on software projects that are tied to complicated business processes with long lifecycles, to help understand where the enterprise is in its lifecycle on any given issue and reprioritize resources to prioritized tasks as needed.
Nobody has an issue tracker that really competes with Jira in this space, least of all Gitlab.
A large enterprise that's fully exploiting Jira will set it up for non-developers, indeed they'll set up Jira primarily for their non-developers. HR will have an HR project with the following issue types: New Hires, Employee Disputes, etc., each with workflows with statuses like resume received, contacted to set up a first interview, first interview set up, offer extended... etc. And then you can use all of Jira's existing reporting schemes to help management figure out, if I need to hire someone new for some type of position, how long does that take? Are there differences between different positions? How long does each stage in the process take? Why? Does the aggregate data show some kind of bias - gender or otherwise? How do I make this faster? And so on. The kinds of questions that you can ask when you're an enterprise with established process and not a start-up with the entire company fit into one room.
Internally, even within our engineering division, we've been using issue linking to other projects to get better visibility into why various work items get stuck. If I'm dependent on some internal service for my work item, and that service becomes unavailable for some period of time, I can grab the Jira support issue tracking the unavailability, mark my work item as blocked by that issue, and then that's visible all the way up the enterprise hierarchy. Similarly, I don't have to ask the people responsible whether they've fixed their system yet, my own item updates automatically to show that my item isn't blocked anymore, and I can go back to work.
The main difference between Jira and Gitlab is that Jira is a workflow management tool and Gitlab is a software management tool. Gitlab looks fantastic if I want to start a new software company and have everything be right there in one window for me. But if you put all the software parts in front of all your non-software teams, they'll balk. It's just not relevant to them.
Microsoft has a tool much like Gitlab called TFS, which has been around for far longer than Gitlab has. TFS is also designed to have this one-stop-shop UI, and TFS also never became an enterprise workflow management tool, even though it too has issues and workflows and customizations up the wazoo. It's a product that's targeted to software developers and it knows it, and that's why hardly any large enterprises actually use it unless they have old .NET projects that have been on TFS forever.
This is the benefit of Atlassian's multiple-product model. Jira is management-first. Bitbucket is software-first. Confluence is customer-first. In an all-in-one UI, you have to pick who's first.
The real problem Gitlab faces is how to retain software projects in growing companies once those companies expand and become large enterprises, and need to start to track more generalized workflows. Because if you had to ask what's most important in the Gitlab UI, workflow and reporting is definitely not it.
With GitLab, one of our goals is to put all the pieces together. We are building out the integrations, step by step, from idea to production. We believe in a world where everyone can contribute to projects. In a large organization, this means diversity in workflows and individuals. Again, I mention that we are focused on really understanding who those users are as part of this exercise. Our UX design team has begun that work and we have already started research on personas. This will further drive our development of GitLab and make sure to nail those other use cases beyond the narrow scope of software development, into allowing companies to leverage GitLab to create software and processes to run their businesses.
In particular, here at GitLab we use GitLab itself for some HR operations too. So we recognize the potential there. And we even want to ship a simple feature for operational support tickets (https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/149). So we definitely recognize the breadth of opportunity and the gaps we still have.
Thanks for bringing up this very relevant discussion. We definitely recognize the shortcomings and we are working hard to improve in these areas. GitLab started out as a software management tool, similar to what you describe. But we are definitely looking to expand in multiple directions. One of them is definitely to make it a tool that is useful beyond just engineers. One of our major thrusts in this area is issue boards. We are considering who the individuals are in a large enterprise that would be interested in issue boards. And we can't solve every use case right away. So we are starting with personas like engineering managers, product managers, and designers. These are folks that may not be very technical, but still are important in the product development flow in a large organization. See this as an example: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/24686
We definitely have our eye to expand beyond these use cases. So we anticipate getting into areas like road mapping, Gantt charts / swim lanes, etc. But again, we work iteratively at GitLab, so our very first stab in this area is burn down charts to get feedback on how a software iteration is performing. And then we build on that to bigger scopes like roadmaps for business managers, etc. See https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/91 for burn down charts.
In addition, we recognize the rich nature of teams and the multi-faceted of different roles in an organization. For lack of better term, we've called it "team-centered collaboration" in this issue, we start the discussion that we want to go beyond just software-first projects: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/1295
The takeaway here is that project management and software tools are inherently complicated by what they have to solve. There's so many different ways to build software and run projects. How do you create the tools to support those workflows so that a new user is not crippled by the complexity? At least in GitLab we are iterating quickly with small improvements every month. But we also have a UX team to design intuitive interfaces and workflows that make sense. We dogfood GitLab ourselves so we understand the pain points (and the complexities!). And of course we develop out in the open to solicit that constant user feedback. As GitLab further matures and we add more features, we are hyper aware that we do not build another JIRA. There is so much configurability and complexity there. It's very heavy. So are iterating quickly, but carefully.
At GitLab we'll work very hard try to have on product that is pleasant to use for simple cases but still allows you to handle the complex ones.
This is a huge UX challenge but it will allow our users to use a single product for all their needs, so they don't have to move projects between tools when they 'graduate' to the complex one. And it will allow us to ship more features in the single product we work on.
Well ;) https://twitter.com/sreuter/status/818614016801009664 ...
Disclaimer: I work at Atlassian.
Guess which two products I use every day, and which two I avoid like the plague.
I feel like about 30% of all Github features have been released since the last major point release of Jira and Confluence, which themselves were buggy, poorly tested, crud as well.
How does Atlassian move "fast"? Has Atlassian done.... anything worth noting in the past 3 years?
I think that Atlassian's pace matches their customer's wishes. I believe that Bitbucket is more or less on ice, functions as a free GitHub for private repos, and provides an outlet for Atlassian to try to convert people into enterprise clients, and I think this is their intention for Trello too.
Enterprise clients do _not_ like rapid change, so I think that JIRA/Atlassian is on track. In the last 3 years, JIRA has integrated GreenHopper as JIRA Agile, and I don't know what/if anything else they've done, but I don't follow JIRA closely.
Bitbucket has released some pretty major stuff in just the last 6 months or so. Built in Pipelines are an example. We've got some other stuff coming soon and there is always more in the pipeline after that.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11759733
Bitbucket added support for large files and went a step beyond GitHub and Gitlab by adding file chunking to speed things up in a big way. Bitbucket added file previews to help those working with large files like gaming devs. Smart mirroring to helps remote devs work faster. I could go on but I don't want to spam this thread with a feature list.
There's a nice little post here with some things. https://blog.bitbucket.org/page/2/
Do you use Trello instead of JIRA? If so, awesome! It is a great product. We love it so much we spent around a full year of revenue to acquire them so rest assured that big of a bet isn't so we can just convert it into a lead gen tool. We believe Trello can be much bigger that than. (Alas, I can't comment on that right now as it is in deal closure period)
If you don't use JIRA LMK what you use and what you like better. I'm always up for listening to what we are doing well and can do better.
Caveat- if you can't tell I work on BB and JIRA. If you are in SF, I'll buy you a beer & a cookie for the answers, if not I'll just keep following this thread.
In addition, Atlassian's services are spread out across many products, which can increase mobility. GitHub has only one product, so while they probably have many teams working on many features, there is still one product they can push releases to.
Github moves really slow in comparison. I guess Github is more focused, but there are a lot of contrasts between Github and Atlassian, and in terms of making money I think Atlassian is doing a lot better.
Has Github acquired anything significant? Github should have acquired Zenhub (which is Trello integrated into Github for the most part) instead of slowing trying to recreate it -- although I guess Github has better code purity if they develop it themselves, but it means they move slower.