Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

Re:Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket by grandalf on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @02:52PM (#4633327)

With the $100M investment I now think it's probably a bad business decision for github not to get a bit more aggressive on pricing for those edge cases where bitbucket clearly wins.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket by sillysaurus on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @03:18PM (#4633470)

it's probably a bad business decision for github not to get a bit more aggressive on pricing for [free private repositories]...

Yes. If Github offered just one free private repo, then I would move to them in a heartbeat.

Github is still Github, after all. ("Second resume" etc.) Unfortunately current circumstances prevent me from open-sourcing a certain small segment of my codebase, and... well... Bitbucket is free, and I'm living on Ramen while trying not to worry about my dwindling savings account. So it's a pretty clear-cut choice for me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket by pbz on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @04:29PM (#4633764)

I would prefer if they would tie their pricing to the size of a repository or the number of collaborators, but not the number of repos. I have a paid account that I would like to dump a lot of old projects that I hardly ever change. I would have to upgrade to "large" and even that one wouldn't fit all the projects. Right now the solution is to either not host it with them or use something like Bitbucket.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket by zem on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @04:46PM (#4633851)

definitely. hobbyists tend to run to "lots of small repos with low activity on any given one", but the net resource usage is the same as or lower than "a few big repos". per-repo pricing is more a "pay not to be inconvenienced" than "pay for your use of our resources" thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket by buddydvd on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @12:23AM (#4635043)

For the many-small-repo scenario, I use this technique to host multiple projects under one Github private repository:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1384325/in-git-is-there-a...

Instead of creating a repo per project, I create a orphan branch within a shared repo for that project. The benefit of this approach is that you can always cleanly export the commits into its own repository without altering SHA ids. The con is that you have to pick separate branch names for each project (e.g. proj1-master, proj2-master).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket by whichdan on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @04:25PM (#4633747)

Personally I'm more bummed about a 1 collaborator limit on the $7/mo plan.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket by shepbook on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @04:30PM (#4633769)

Where is this "1 collaborator limit"? GitHub has unlimited collaborators on all repositories, private or public.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket by gingerlime on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @05:31PM (#4634066)

there used to be a limit to the number of collaborators, but it was lifted a few months ago.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket by whichdan on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @12:45PM (#4637123)

Cool! I never noticed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket by timr on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @08:51PM (#4634581)

Yes. Especially when you factor in that github does a startlingly bad job of many basic things. Their ticketing system blows, for example -- you can't prioritize anything. Yet they have time to implement a CLI in the search bar...

I moved my personal private repos to BitBucket a long time ago, and haven't looked back.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket by zalew on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @10:21PM (#4634779)

that's an example of why I stick with Bitbucket and don't bother to switch to Github with my projects although it's so hyped. Bitbucket works great, gets the job done, their commit log beats up the gihub one, and they don't focus on implementing useless bells and whistles.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket by gcr on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @10:10PM (#4634762)

You can reorder tasks by clicking and dragging, and you can assign discrete priorities with labels. What more do you need?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket by edmccard on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @05:44AM (#4635676)

>What more do you need?

Well, when you've got a large list of things stored on a computer, and you want them displayed in a certain order, automatic sorting (after you assign a priority) is a lot more useful than having to rearrange them manually.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket by gcr on Sunday October 14, 2012 @02:08PM (#4652055)

I thought assigning priority labels is manual anyway?

I mean, if you want to build a natural language parser that counts how many times the words "URGENT" and "HELP" appears in the issue and then automatically reorders it, you can do that with the Github issues API anyways, right? I don't know of existing bug trackers that make priority automatic.

You can filter based on labels in github issues, if that's what you meant.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket by grandalf on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @10:04PM (#4634751)

the cli stuff is very simply implemented, but cool nonetheless.

[ Parent | on HN ]