Comparing the pros and cons of Bitbucket to Github [closed]

Answer 1

You really need to answer a basic question first. Do you want to use Mercurial or Git. I had to make this decision earlier this year. Mercurial was by far easier to setup and start using. I ultimately chose Git for the following reasons:

• Most OpenSource Projects are moving from SVN to Git
• Git allowed the most flexibility in whatever I wanted to do. (This is the main reason)
• Third-party integration

If your business might need complicated version control processes go with Git. The learning curve is steep but it will be easier to do what you really want at the end of the day. I will qualify what I mean by 'steep'. The difference between teaching someone Mercurial vs. Git, is trying to get a Windows user to learn Linux command lines.

If you want a quick easy to use DVCS in which you think simple branching and versioning is all you will ever need, don't kill yourself with Git, use Mercurial. But keep in mind most people you talk to in Mailing lists, IRC, etc. will have experience with Git not Mercurial.

If you plan on paying for GitHub or BitBucket, I suggest you also look at Kiln. FogCreek has made mercurial even easier.

Answer 2

Atlassian is doing a great job improving Bitbucket since they aquired it. They are a company with a great product portfolio for software development/project management tooling. I think from a business perspective, that might be something to consider, especially if you use their tools already.

Answer 3

if you are new to them both then it depends on what you need. a free github account doesn't include any private repositories whereas bitbucket free account gives you unlimited private repositories.

this was the selling thing for me - I didnt want to initially pay for github as i was trialing it but i didnt want me code to be free for all as it was commercial. This lead me to choose bitbucket

I now use both (github for my OSS products and bitbucket for more locked down code) but I am moving my entire team away from SVN to mercurial as it was a simplier step to go to that git. From personal experience, it was easier to get to grips with Hg initially before git when I was using a DVCS for the first time. It didnt require the complex git install and could be used from within the windows cmd or powershell windows

Answer 4

As already mentioned the difference between the options you mention is really git vs. Mercurial. This cannot be stressed enough.

git is a tool written by exceptional programmers for their personal needs. They want to be able to do exceptionally advanced things, they are confident that they know what they are doing.

If your organization does not only employ exceptional programmers, expect high costs for learning, trouble shooting and frustrated people discussing in the coffee room when using git.

Mercurial gives you 80% of the functionality for 20% of the effort compared to git. (Hmm, such claims might be close to violate Stackexchange policies, I have no real statistical evidence behind these numbers)

For the average programmer the functionality of git and Mercurial are very close to each other. For some special cases git might be superior even from business perspective. If they apply to you, I assume you have git experts in you organization already. If they can convince you, go for it.

I cannot comment about the service quality of the hosters you mention.

Disclaimer: Yes, I do use git and I do like it in certain aspects.