5 ms·

I've used and loved bitbucket for years for private project hosting, but for the occasion where I need to put more devs on a particular project I'm not sure why

I've used and loved bitbucket for years for private project hosting, but for the occasion where I need to put more devs on a particular project I'm not sure why I would pay for it now over using gitlab for free. It might be different if it was 5 users per project for free, but 5 collaborators across all of my projects is just too limiting - especially when I can get everything bb has and more from gitlab. At the same time I understand bb needs to make money - hopefully they'll make enough to keep up the competition.

falsedan 10y ago
> I understand bb needs to make money They're an Atlassian product, they're pretty ok on the cash-money front.
kzisme 10y ago
Have you noticed any drawbacks to using Gitlab over Bitbucket/Github?
- netcraft 10y ago
  admittedly I haven't used gitlab to the extent I have with bitbucket/gitlab - but so far I haven't found anything missing personally - in fact there a lot of things in gitlab that I wish were in the others. A lot of the github enhancements lately have been things that gitlab had first. The only real downside at the moment is for public open source github is still the place everyone is expecting you to be. Its hard enough for small projects to be noticed on github, putting them somewhere else means nobody will ever see them just browsing. But for private or private-for-now projects gitlab seems to be the best fit for me currently.
- kaishiro 10y ago
  Not OP, but as a majority user of Gitlab the only downside is integrations. By that I specifically mean Codeship. It's just not considered a first class citizen to some yet, which is unfortunate.
  - sytse 10y ago
    Codeship support might happen, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12697135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12697135 In the meantime, is there anything that we can improve in GitLab CI to make your switch possible?
    - kaishiro 10y ago
      To be completely honest - probably nothing. This is a legacy issue on our end, not yours. I haven't even taken the time to explore migrating our GH/Codeship builds to GL CI. We essentially mirror our repos amongst both offerings at the moment, running builds via Codeship until either they support GL and we can drop GH, or we get the time to spend on a proper Codeship => GH CI migration and we can drop Codeship. Anyone's guess what will win out at this point :) Appreciate the response either way.
      - sytse 10y ago
        Thanks for the reply!
  - moritzplassnig 10y ago
    For us at Codeship, it has nothing to do with not taking GitLab seriously, not treating them as first-class citizen, etc. We'll add GitLab support, hopefully, sooner than later. There are simply other feature requests that are more important for existing customers that are already using Codeship.
    - kaishiro 10y ago
      Sure, and just to be clear that wasn't me straight griping. Completely understand you guys have priorities. Just doesnt change the fact that it's an existing pain point for heavy Gitlab users.

falsedan 10y ago

> I understand bb needs to make money They're an Atlassian product, they're pretty ok on the cash-money front.

kzisme 10y ago

Have you noticed any drawbacks to using Gitlab over Bitbucket/Github?

netcraft 10y ago
admittedly I haven't used gitlab to the extent I have with bitbucket/gitlab - but so far I haven't found anything missing personally - in fact there a lot of things in gitlab that I wish were in the others. A lot of the github enhancements lately have been things that gitlab had first. The only real downside at the moment is for public open source github is still the place everyone is expecting you to be. Its hard enough for small projects to be noticed on github, putting them somewhere else means nobody will ever see them just browsing. But for private or private-for-now projects gitlab seems to be the best fit for me currently.
kaishiro 10y ago
Not OP, but as a majority user of Gitlab the only downside is integrations. By that I specifically mean Codeship. It's just not considered a first class citizen to some yet, which is unfortunate.
- sytse 10y ago
  Codeship support might happen, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12697135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12697135 In the meantime, is there anything that we can improve in GitLab CI to make your switch possible?
  - kaishiro 10y ago
    To be completely honest - probably nothing. This is a legacy issue on our end, not yours. I haven't even taken the time to explore migrating our GH/Codeship builds to GL CI. We essentially mirror our repos amongst both offerings at the moment, running builds via Codeship until either they support GL and we can drop GH, or we get the time to spend on a proper Codeship => GH CI migration and we can drop Codeship. Anyone's guess what will win out at this point :) Appreciate the response either way.
    - sytse 10y ago
      Thanks for the reply!
- moritzplassnig 10y ago
  For us at Codeship, it has nothing to do with not taking GitLab seriously, not treating them as first-class citizen, etc. We'll add GitLab support, hopefully, sooner than later. There are simply other feature requests that are more important for existing customers that are already using Codeship.
  - kaishiro 10y ago
    Sure, and just to be clear that wasn't me straight griping. Completely understand you guys have priorities. Just doesnt change the fact that it's an existing pain point for heavy Gitlab users.