3 ms·

Per repo pricing was why we didn't go with github. Atlassian was our only option till we shopped around till we found Visual Studio Team Services. For a team

Per repo pricing was why we didn't go with github. Atlassian was our only option till we shopped around till we found Visual Studio Team Services. For a team of 4. Simply great. No need to pay for Jira or anything at this point. Now, I won't go back to github even if it was completely free. The value Atlassian gives makes it a much better and attractive offering if you don't like Microsoft.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
All the production code here is on BitBucket. Forcing users to pay for privacy has always stuck in my throat as a business model. I think this change is due to GitHub feeling some heat from Atlassian and GitLab.
- elbigbad 10y ago
  I have a lot of half-finished projects kicking around that I would love to start on github, but I'm concerned about privacy and it certainly isn't worth it to me to pay $7/mo rather than keeping them on my Dropbox. I haven't checked out BitBucket as I kind of thought GitHub was the only game in town, but will check it out. Would be nice to get these projects off my machine but not make them public. edit: ohh and I'm just starting on BitBucket and it both imports from Git directly and defaults to private. Awesome.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - matwood 10y ago
    Yeah, I dropped github years ago for bitbucket for my personal private repos. Can't beat free. Their strategy worked because when I moved my employer off of SVN, a paid Bitbucket is where we went.
    - matwood 10y ago
      Also, I think gh has this now, but for a long time bitbucket was the only one that gave you the ability to prevent history changes on certain branches (I always do develop and master). If this had been available in gh we would not have seen those couple big projects accidentally force push develop.
  - frostymarvelous 10y ago
    Once you start integrating with their other tools, you'll be giddy with joy. But, they're not free so...

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

All the production code here is on BitBucket. Forcing users to pay for privacy has always stuck in my throat as a business model. I think this change is due to GitHub feeling some heat from Atlassian and GitLab.

elbigbad 10y ago
I have a lot of half-finished projects kicking around that I would love to start on github, but I'm concerned about privacy and it certainly isn't worth it to me to pay $7/mo rather than keeping them on my Dropbox. I haven't checked out BitBucket as I kind of thought GitHub was the only game in town, but will check it out. Would be nice to get these projects off my machine but not make them public. edit: ohh and I'm just starting on BitBucket and it both imports from Git directly and defaults to private. Awesome.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- matwood 10y ago
  Yeah, I dropped github years ago for bitbucket for my personal private repos. Can't beat free. Their strategy worked because when I moved my employer off of SVN, a paid Bitbucket is where we went.
  - matwood 10y ago
    Also, I think gh has this now, but for a long time bitbucket was the only one that gave you the ability to prevent history changes on certain branches (I always do develop and master). If this had been available in gh we would not have seen those couple big projects accidentally force push develop.
- frostymarvelous 10y ago
  Once you start integrating with their other tools, you'll be giddy with joy. But, they're not free so...