Response: what a silly notion, no
Or another one I found recently: we'd like to comment on code that isn't within 10 lines of a changed file. You know, because one line change in file a can impact stuff elsewhere. Or even in another project but the chances of that happening are more slim than a tachyon hitting an atom as it passes through earth.
Response: Good idea, here's stuff we did this year, and here's other stuff we do. (aka the non committal middle finger)
It sucks because atlassian products are 80% of the way there, but the final 20% polish never seems to arrive. And its been years.
I really hate that we can't say yes to every feature suggestion, and what we _are_ able to talk about seems to come across as non-committal to some. The fact that a suggestion is open means we think it has merit too (we close "silly notions"), it then becomes a matter of priorities.
- Roger, Bitbucket Server PM
Adding things like large file storage support is cool, I guess, but when you never use it its rather a case of appearing to prioritize certain market segments over others.
I know I've read the article that states how you prioritize, with a major one being usage patterns. But I wonder just how accurate a metric that is given in my specific group, we've started to avoid using the review tooling in bitbucket because its almost impossible to use to accomplish the goal.
Unless the idea is for Bitbucket to have a completely minimal set of features and for anything useful to pay license fees for plugins I can't quite make sense of how the priorities are decided.
This was kind of my synopsis when I looked at implementing them back in 2009. My take was that they built out 80% of the platform and then expected the customers/users to build out the extra 20% for each other.
Trello, amazing because of it's small size and limited, elegant feature set. Atlassian, awful because they won't implement everything that their customers ask for. Oh and the only feature that you've pointed out that's missing, 2fa, it's not missing. It's been in place for literally years.
The open issue tracker that Atlassian maintains is there so that you can see things that they've said no to. You can actually dig in and find out if someone else has asked for a feature that you want. You can see, completely transparently, whether or not they might implement it. The things that Trello has been asked to build but has quietly and privately said no to? No where to be found (and reasonably so given comments like this one).
Using a companies transparency against them is gross. It shows a lack of empathy for the people who build these systems, the trade offs that they have to make and the responsible decisions they make to not implement every single feature request. JIRA is enterprise software, it's incredibly extensible and configurable. The fact that some people configure it poorly isn't entirely their fault (though sane defaults can solve for some of this problem). Trello is for small teams. It's compact and simple in ways that JIRA was never intended to be. The $425MM? That means Atlassian understands that Trello has captured a part of they didn't.
BitBucket has had 2FA since Sep 2015: https://blog.bitbucket.org/2015/09/10/two-step-verification-...
Do some research, unless your goal was to slander.
The actual content that's in Confluence though, much more portable than anything you're going to get out of another enterprise software vendor.
I would not expect wonderful things for Trello and thankfully it appears they got their money out up front.
My words of advice to anyone looking is to stay away from Atlassian at all costs. Once your in too deep you probably are trapped - which is what they count on.