Bitbucket Server (formerly Stash) from Atlassian was a self-hosted source code management solution. The product is no longer available for sale, and support for existing licenses ended in 2024.
Bitbucket Server (formerly Stash), as part of Atlassian products, provides a native integration framework and tools for automation. The platform supports git and mercurial repositories and provides features to export and import repositories from other projects. Migration to the …
We migrated several of our applications to BitBucket from legacy Team Foundation Server, and the experience has been significantly better. It's easy to use and plenty flexible. Other solutions such as GitHub are also good, but we needed to keep everything on-prem due to …
We started off with Apache Subversion (SVN) and moved over to Git (supported via Bitbucket) as Git itself has started to become the new industry norm. The pull request feature allows developers to perform code reviews without needing another code review application. We settled …
If you are selecting a product to use and you are not currently using version control, it may be in your best interest to choose another tool. Bitbucket Server is not as feature rich and doesn't feel as mature as some other platforms and arguably, with the lost production from …
Stash was selected before I was at the company, but we're looking at these alternatives and actively considering switching. Stash seems to have all the necessary features we need to make it work, but it doesn't have any bells and whistles or extra special features that we can …
It can be daunting to set up a Git server for a developer. Managing it can be more time consuming than you want it to be. Stash helps you out by handling what you likely need. If you are already a Git pro, you won't need it, but our team loves the simplicity that Stash brings …
We migrated from svn to Git and the transition was smooth. We have tools that migrate the complete history along with the authors of the various files and the history from svn to Git. The migration was seamless and easy. We can see complete history of check-in as if we were …
Git is far superior at merging than SVN and I think every other VCS from what I've heard. It's also by far the most common so using it is a no brainer. Since it's written by the one true king Linus himself there can be no question to its design and architecture.
The only other VCS tool I've used in production is SVN. In my option Git is a better option for several reasons. Reason one is simplicity, actions like reviewing changes, committing or stashing changes, and managing multiple feature branches is much easier with Git. The second …
Front-End Web Developer, Office of Mediated Education
Chose Git
The two main alternatives to Git that I know about are Mercurial and Subversion. I've never used either one, but I know a bit about Subversion. From what I remember, Subversion requires a server. I don't anyone using any other source control other than Git, it seems to have …
Git is more advanced and easier to use. It has a very simple UI and a very efficient command-line tool. Git gives you flexibility and performance for the price, and has greatly increased the complexity of workflow. The overall performance is good. It caches information locally …
What I know is Perforce and CVS, such other repos tend to store deltas while Git stores the snapshots of the stuff as their commit ID's. This is what makes Git much much faster when you are developing on huge repos, since the checkouts are just instantaneous.
There are not many surviving alternatives for Git (maybe SVN) which in itself is quite meaningful. Git is the best versioning system of all time for programming, period. The difference between a good mathematical tool and sending .zip-s around emailing lists or FTP drives is so …
GIT being a widely used tool have better reliability than its peers and have stands out when we compare it on operational performance criteria. GIT with speedy and extensive branching capabilities have helped developers to use check in their code quickly and space efficient way. G…
It's easy to use and stable. These are the two strengths I see in Git. It does not need a lot of time to learn, but you still need to learn it. It has high stability. Bugs are not often to see in Git, and the community support is wonderful. With the help of GitHub, you can …
Compared to SVN, Git has a decentralized approach which increases collaboration in the team by enabling the local stored branches. There is no need to be connected to the repository(via an internet link) to work and commit code. Besides the fact that the performance of Git is …
I do not have much experience with other version control tools. Git is highly used everywhere and it is hard to find a development team that isn't using it. One thing I know is that with Git each developer has their own copy of a repository so they could technically work …
Git is the best Source Control Management Tool I've used. Every company, team, and project I've worked on professionally either used Git 100%, or was moving to Git, away from the alternatives like SVN. Git has all the features necessary, as well as a very large community of …
Git is by far the best version control system out there. It's open source, free, and fast. No other version control system I've ever used has had all three features.
Primarily we chose Mercurial, but our customers from abroad choose Git and recommended us to use it within a project that we are doing with them. Git for us is very easy way to contribute to these projects. But from the other side we see that more and more projects and …
For us, we use both Git and GitHub so they were a package. I suppose you could use Git with another VCS/hosting service to track changes if it fit well enough, but for us we just went with design out of the box. We pay for the GitHub private repository for the extra security.
I've used both Apache Subversion & Git over the years and have maintained my allegiance to Git. Git is not objectively better than Subversion. It's different.
The key difference is that it is decentralized. With Subversion, you have a problem here: The SVN Repository may be in …
Branching and merging are easy: Branching is a walk in the park. It feels like a natural part of the workflow. They are cheap (fast and consume very little space) so that you can branch whenever you want. This means you can sandbox your features and ideas till they are ready …
Git is pretty much the main choice today when choosing a source control system. There are still others out there like Subversion and Mercurial, however I have not evaluated these as they are older than Git and I tend to try to stay on the leading edge of what is in use for the …
Git is a distributed version control system. There is more flexibility to work with a bigger team. You can modify the same file and later merge all changes into a single file.
After using Subversion previously for a number of years, Git comes across as the new and improved source control approach. Git seems very suited to working with Agile:- branches can be created easily, allowing multiple developers to switch to them quickly, and having local …
While my experience is limited on Microsoft Team Foundation Server, my understanding is that it works only for windows development work. This leaves out developers of alternative languages. Since git allows any code to be placed in it (you could even use it to back up plain …
Bitbucket Server (formerly Stash) is suitable for departments or teams with the capacity to manage and support their own products and the availability to implement the tool on their own infrastructure. Bitbucket Server (formerly Stash) enables a good framework based on git to integrate the development cycle and to handle anything from a minor group of users and repositories to an extended usage with multiple users and roles collaborating in different projects.
Git is by far the best Source Control Management Tool I've used. I would recommend it to anyone, whether it's an individual working on their own project, a small start-up company, or a huge organization with thousands of developers. Maintaining code via source control is absolutely mandatory for all developers everywhere.
Projects & Permissions - Stash keeps you and your developers productive by providing a way to structure your repositories and manage permissions via a simple, yet powerful user interface. Stash is very easy to use, manage & administer.
Essentially Stash gives two versions of interfaces to work with.
Stash Repository hosted on a server.
Atlassian SourceTree.
Atlassian Sourcetree is a tool to work with a code in stash. The two 'web' and 'desktop' versions make working with code user friendly, intuitive and comprehensive.
Connectivity to JIRA - Stash keeps track of all issues associated with commits. Users can use Stash to quickly see all issues associated with a commit, or use the Source tab on JIRA issues for an aggregate view of all the code changes that are related to a specific JIRA issue. With this information available, your development team saves time when tracking particular bug fixes or improvements.
Git is designed to work in a distributed manner, allowing each developer to run a local node that has full control of the project. Through this, the developer is able to merge his work with others on a main 'branch' & work in sync without having to worry about stepping on your other developers toes.
Because Git has solved the software problem of dependency, users who commit code that needs to be deleted can just roll back to a restore point, saving precious development time & tons of headaches for Information Technology. This is also very helpful when cloning projects or creating new features on the current project.
Git has a beautiful command line interface that is intuitive, easy to learn & extensible. You can also observe all the changes you have made in your project throughout the development with just a few simple commands. This diverse set of command-line tools is easy for the end user & very powerful.
You can't allow users to create new repositories without them being full admins of a whole project
There's not a way to limit who can merge a pull request (e.g. allow only the author to merge) outside of branch permissions
Some settings like default reviewers can't be easily copied to different repositories (without setting default reviewers at the project level, which we don't want to do because a single project has multiple team's code under it)
Some of the commands are a little obtuse if you're not using a Git Client
Since Git is so widely used in the development space, it's easy to believe that growth and innovation might become stale in the area of version control. Competition is sparse these days and I'm curious if this "Standard" is going to keep moving forward somehow.
It's hard to fault a tool that is so ubiquitous and hardly gets in your way.
Git has met all standards for a source control tool and even exceeded those standards. Git is so integrated with our work that I can't imagine a day without it.
The usability of its interface is pretty straight forward when it comes to creating projects and repositories, but when you have to dive into finer grained portions of the UI things can get tricky. If you are used to using tools like GitHub or Gitlab -- Bitbucket is just different enough to be a bother.
Never really needed any support as the application is very easy to set up and maintain. Any questions we had were well documented in their online documentation, and community forum.
I am not sure what the official Git support channels are like as I have never needed to use any official support. Because Git is so popular among all developers now, it is pretty easy to find the answer to almost any Git question with a quick Google search. I've never had trouble finding what I'm looking for.
We migrated several of our applications to BitBucket from legacy Team Foundation Server, and the experience has been significantly better. It's easy to use and plenty flexible. Other solutions such as GitHub are also good, but we needed to keep everything on-prem due to constraints around our industry and company, though we are currently re-evaluating whether we can move to something cloud based in the future.
GIT being a widely used tool have better reliability than its peers and have stands out when we compare it on operational performance criteria. GIT with speedy and extensive branching capabilities have helped developers to use check in their code quickly and space efficient way. GIT have the facility to quickly fetch the complete repository on to your local system.
In positive form, having Stash over not having it at all has provided us with a superior repository system over trying to push to some local server instance and manage branches/merging from our local machines.
There are no real negatives to using Stash, its only problem is that there are competitors out there that can offer additional features.
Git has saved our organization countless hours having to manually trace code to a breaking change or manage conflicting changes. It has no equal when it comes to scalability or manageability.
Git has allowed our engineering team to build code reviews into its workflow by preventing a developer from approving or merging in their own code; instead, all proposed changes are reviewed by another engineer to assess the impact of the code and whether or not it should be merged in first. This greatly reduces the likelihood of breaking changes getting into production.
Git has at times created some confusion among developers about what to do if they accidentally commit a change they decide later they want to roll back. There are multiple ways to address this problem and the best available option may not be obvious in all cases.