Having not used that many, I like GitHub's over BitBucket's because it has tagging and milestones, which are vastly more useful than some preset priority and type fields. GitHub's is a lot closer to how my brain works.
It just seems funny to me that a company that also makes a bug tracking system has a really bad one coupled with it's version control hosting. It makes some sense, but it bugs me.
We use BitBucket extensively at my company for two reasons: Mercurial support and Unlimited private repositories.
The mercurial support is great because of legacy code (I finally have come to admit that Git is superior for most purposes). The unlimited private repositories is great because we make loads of projects. I came from so many companies that would have this giant monolithic tree of tangled dependencies because they would check everything into one project. I fear this with GitHub's pricing model.
I find BitBucket's dashboard useless. It used to be decent but they changed it some years back. BitBucket's security was sort of disturbing as well but I believe they have added 2 factor authentication.
I will say that Atlassian's Jira used to be the best bug tracking but I have found that in the last couple of years it has become a complete bloated pig that is overly complex and slow. The hosted Jira is so awful that we contemplated just using BitBucket for bugs. We eventually switched to Youtrack and are loving it.
I infinitely prefer BitBucket to GitHub. I guess GitHub is great if you are working on public or open source projects, but BitBucket seems to be much better at handling internal (private) projects to me.
Their lack of popularity also seems to translate to a lower attack profile, so I feel that my private projects are safer on BB than GH.
I've evaluated many issue trackers too, and none of them seem to come close to Jira. Yes it is slow, but the depth of features (and plugins) are great, and BitBucket works seamlessly with it.
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.
I've used both and they both work quite well. I prefer Github for the community, and I find their design and overall experience to be nicer. But Bitbucket really isn't bad either.
I use both. I find Bitbucket just lacks polish— it's hard to come up with specific examples, but various things give off the vibe of it being maintained by a small team within a larger organization for whom it's not really a priority.
Code search is one, but I also find it harder to get to the exact diff or pull request that I want. I don't get Github's nice rendering of filetypes like STLs, and there's a lot less of the context-sensitive popups when you're mentioning users, issues, commits, etc.
Bitbucket's issue tracker is kind of limited from ever getting too good, because it's really just there as a teaser for JIRA.
Agreed about Bitbucket. I've used it for a long time and haven't found it to be substantively different from GitHub in either functionality or reliability. The major downside, as I see it, is that it's just not as popular.
I also wonder why so many people forget about bitbucket. To me really it's the matter of taste, and there is certainly less differences between github and bitbucket than there is between git and mercurial.
It just seems funny to me that a company that also makes a bug tracking system has a really bad one coupled with it's version control hosting. It makes some sense, but it bugs me.
reply