
Why we moved away from GitHub - karlalopez
http://layer0.authentise.com/bitbucket-jira-integration-or-why-we-moved-away-from-github.html
======
omni
This article is low-content and reads like a paid shill for Bitbucket. Here's
a summary if you haven't clicked yet:

* We think GitHub is expensive

* We use JIRA (no real justification given)

* Bitbucket has a better price for our use case and integrates better with JIRA

~~~
jevgeni
This is a short personal opinion. It is debatable how front page worthy it is,
but calling it a paid shill is silly. After all, this isn't Russia Today's
comment section.

~~~
baldfat
I personally prefer bitbucket for all my personal repos. I get unlimited
private repos for free.

~~~
hardwaresofton
This. While I don't know if they would do it if they were as popular as they
want to be (maybe bitbucket desperately wants to charge but don't feel like
they could compete if they did), I personally use bitbucket for this very
reason.

Sometimes I also use bitbucket just to get away from hosting every single
thing in Github. Nothing against Github (I use it quite a bit, and from what
I've read their culture and ethics are good if not great), but regardless of
their intentions, I'd rather not have one company monopolize mindshare

------
stickfigure
This is good to read. The marketplace needs healthy alternatives and it would
be a shame if Github turned into the kind of natural monopoly that Ebay or
Facebook are. I say this as a happy Github user who doesn't want Github to get
complacent.

Bitbucket puts heavy effort into their integration with JIRA. Their pricing
model is totally different. Yeay for choice!

------
LoSboccacc
I moved to bitbucket as well but for the team features not for the ecosystem:
I hate jira and confluence with passion.

~~~
zyxley
JIRA is one of those things that I've always seen mentioned as amazing if set
up properly... but I've never seen it set up "properly". It seems to always
get harnessed to the needs of management and/or multipurposed for a hundred
different uses, leading to a horrifyingly overcomplicated ticketing process.

~~~
james-skemp
We're using it for agile and a number of us have realized that the tool (JIRA)
dictates our workflow instead of the other way around.

So this rings really true to me.

------
dstaheli
I prefer VS Team Services. The Pull Request UI rules.
[https://www.visualstudio.com/features/version-control-
vs](https://www.visualstudio.com/features/version-control-vs)

------
cheshire137
That GIF was super distracting while trying to read.

------
bigtunacan
Unless you are using Mercurial why use BitBucket or Stash? If cost is the main
concern then it seems like GitLab would be a better option and it has great
integrations available and is open source.

And if you don't mind hosting yourself then there are other options too like
Gogs. My personal experience with BitBucket is that the feature set is poor
compared to alternatives.

------
momania
"Github charges based on the number of repositories"

Might be worth noticing that this is for the SaaS. The enterprise install is
charged per user.

Makes sense too I guess since then you pay for your own storage anyway, where
for the SaaS most of the costs is, hence charged per repo.

------
beliu
For those considering alternatives, here's another (currently also HN front
page):
[https://src.sourcegraph.com/sourcegraph@b1af2ab4761618930f6f...](https://src.sourcegraph.com/sourcegraph@b1af2ab4761618930f6f7e44eb775e08fac3f38e/.tree/README.md)

Key features: \- jump to definition right in browser \- find usage examples \-
full text AND symbol search \- source code publicly available \- self-hosted,
installable in 5 minutes

Full disclosure: I'm co-founder of Sourcegraph.

------
dankohn1
My take is that there is real value by integrating your issue tracker with
your source repo. If you start with Jira, it's not surprising you would end up
with Bitbucket. If you start with Github, it is very easy to use the Github
issues tracker.

And, if you want extra Github issues functionality (like a Kanban view), I
recommend [https://waffle.io](https://waffle.io).

------
webo
The problem with Bitbucket is that it does not integrate with many dev tools
and services. Even the most popular CI tools such as CircleCI and Travis do
not support Bitbucket and work with only GitHub.

I don't mind paying a small price for these conveniences.

~~~
tootie
I find it hard to believe that any CI wouldn't integrate with any generic git
repo.

~~~
detaro
TravisCI has the following issue about that: [https://github.com/travis-
ci/travis-ci/issues/667](https://github.com/travis-ci/travis-ci/issues/667)

TL;DR: they use Github for auth, user management, ... and don't want to
rebuild that stuff outside of Github.

------
Hortinstein
Just a side question, if someone who uses Github as part of a professional
organization could answer.

Has the limit on private repositories ever driven publishing of open source
libraries for some of your repos?

------
jjuhl
Setting up your own repo with push/pull via ssh is trivial. If your needs are
just "company internal" that's the path I'd suggest.

------
bedros
for my own use, I setup digital ocean droplet and installed redmine.org with
mercurial HG

all for the cost of abou5 $5 a month.

------
vimota
You may know about this already but Jira has Github integration as well [1]...

[1] [http://blogs.atlassian.com/2014/04/connecting-
jira-6-2-githu...](http://blogs.atlassian.com/2014/04/connecting-
jira-6-2-github/)

~~~
brokentone
Noted in the article...

"Github _can_ integrate with Jira, but it has multi-minute delays before Jira
gets all of the information. We got tired of it. Seriously. It only takes 30
seconds to break flow. Github's delay broke flow."

~~~
xvolter
That seems like an issue for Jira, not Github IMO. Atlasssian owning both Jira
and Bitbucket though, seems like they'd prefer to keep it the way it is for
this very reason.

------
nickbauman
One of my clients moved their repos from Bitbucket to Github because
Bitbucket's uptime had become a reliability issue. The team really dislikes
the Pull Request interface of GitHub compared to Bitbucket (as do I).

~~~
zyxley
Could you elaborate on what you prefer about the Bitbucket equivalent?

~~~
gknoy
The biggest difference I see is that Bitbucket's diff view is a tree of
changed files, rather than a unified diff. There are things I like about both
-- I like that I can get an overview of what changed in Bitbucket, and have a
better high-level view of changes.

I still miss the unified diff view from Github, though -- it seemed to work
well for small changes, and kept me in the flow for reading, and worked better
on a narrower screen (since it didn't need a left-side navigation section).
That was the main thing I missed when I first moved to Bitbucket.

------
jamesjang0
Bitbucket was becoming more and more unreliable (server being down for no
reason or due to "wrong config") so we had to switch over to Github

------
hch
If your startup cannot afford GitHub i suggest you sell the Ping Pong table

