Why people keep asking you to use Github
lusislog.blogspot.com
lusislog.blogspot.com
So for the small development workshops (i.e. 5 or less employees) it is a definite no brainer of the other sort :)
If your business can't afford $25/month, then you don't have a business.
BitBucket, on the other hand, gives you unlimited public and private repositories and 5 collaborators for /free/.
For a business, $25/mo isn't much, but for personal projects i prefer free over paid.
As for if github is so much better as to be worth the extra money is an entirely different flamew..discussion.
Anything else that involves other people and is private is somewhat of ant oxymoron. And for OSS like stuff there are more than enough services on github in the free plan.
I seriously can't comprehend your use case here.
It came as no surprise to us when Atlassian decided the only way BitBucket could compete with GitHub was to essentially give it away.
While they can afford to do this now, I'm fearful that the people choosing BitBucket for this reason alone may get a rude awakening when Atlassian decides BitBucket shouldn't continue being a loss-leader for the rest of their products.
Our growth at GitHub has only continued to increase month over month, so while people laud BitBucket's free plan, many more understand the value of paying for a premium service.
But, ultimately, I see only good things in having two competing products and providers, and I hope you all both do well :)
Many others have been surprised by our move to allow unlimited private repositories... unlimited repositories is something we're happy to give back to the development and open-source community. This approach is similar to our Starter licenses, which are fully featured versions of our products for $10, for up to 10 users. All of the proceeds go to our favorite charity Room to Read.
To date, we've donated $750k USD to build schools and provide children with scholarships in places like Cambodia so they can complete high school.
Starter licenses are used by millions of developers around the globe, but they had one missing bit. The ability to store your code somewhere -- something every developer needs.
Building on the success of Starter licenses, we've modeled the Bitbucket pricing in the same way -- to help open-source, up-and-coming developers and organizations get their ideas started hassle free.
Be rest assured, our Starter licenses and Bitbucket's unlimited private repositories are here to stay.
I think this has a lot to do with UI. Even after a few attempts at this, I still can't find the various buttons when I want to. For example, there's a pull requests tab on the original repo and on my fork plus another button somewhere above that. Which do I click when?
This is on top of the fact I'm rarely sure if I'm working on the "real" repo or some random dude's copy.
Note I don't dislike DVCS. I like it a lot. But if you don't read the right blogs or wherever it is the cool kids figure out which repos are active and which aren't, the github centric experience is frustrating.
2. Type "git clone git@github.com:mygithubusername/projectname.git"
3. cd projectname
4. make changes, and commit.
5. git push origin master (master may be optional, or a different branch)
6. Click the 'pull request' button
7. Fill out the form
8. You're done!
Also, git does support the 'mail the author a patch' workflow, too: it's just not what GitHub uses. I _believe_ the kernel is developed this way.
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-format-p...
Yes, I've done this a few times. But the procedure is not internalizable in the same way that "mail patch" is. In particular, the pull requests tab always looks really appealing to me whenever I want to clone a new repo (I'd like to make a request to pull your source, after all). The problem is unrelated to git, I could happily use git with email.
To each his own. TMTOWTDI. :)
True, Github badly needs a "bless this non-root repository as the canonical one" feature. That's absolutely important for less plugged-in contributors, which may be why it's not as high on their radar.
While I can respect Ruby and RoR technically, it's not so far above other products that it can make up for the fact that I'd prefer not to interact with the community on a day to day basis.
Maybe I've just hit a weird sample, but I've heard other people outside of my circle make similar comments, yet I've rarely, if ever, heard it said about other communities (except maybe the Slashdot community).
github has to be one of the few services/companies that use ruby that doesn't constantly push it in your face with a bunch of better-than-thou blog posts about how ruby is awesome. Twitter used to be like that (or at least felt like it) with ruby/rails and then eventually with whatever language or technology du jour they were using.
None of my github projects are ruby, and I don't think many of the projects I follow are ruby (I honestly don't really keep track of that, but it would be an interesting statistic).
While I know github uses ruby, I don't think of them as doing anything other than providing the github service/website. In the same way I don't really think of Facebook as anything other than providing the facebook service/website. It only comes up when we talk about hiring ("If you want to work at Facebook, you'd have to do PHP.") or when you get a fatal error (I actually got "Fatal error: Uncaught OAuthException: An active access token must be used to query information about the current user. thrown in /var/www/publisher/system/application/libraries/facebook.php on line 453" the other day -- that's only happened once for me). I'd like to think that some places concentrating on providing a good service/experience and the actual choice of implementation only matters to them and they'd use the best tools for the job (where "best" may be defined as amount of experience they have with it).
Consider the perception of the language agnostic nature of github vs codeplex. I don't spend a lot of time on codeplex, but I have this perception that just about everything hosted on codeplex is written in one of the limited subset of languages that Microsoft sanctions/supports (this may be a function of the Microsoft/Windows platform, where it's non-trivial to get things like, say, vanilla ruby or python running on Windows compared to .Net stuff). Code that is hosted on github is merely known to use git for source control.
While I get that same feel from the rubbings from some ruby folk, (I'm a C/python/Objective C guy mainly), I don't honestly feel their rubbings in relation to github at all. I mean, it's source control, what does it have to do with the language you put into it?
Are you rejecting git too because rubyiests happen to use grabbed onto Linus Torvald's version of Hg?
As the author of the original blog entry stated, feature-wise Git is similar to many other source control systems, "The issue wasn't the technology. Mercurial and Git are pretty much at feature parity (as is Bazaar)."
He goes on to say that the differentiator is the community. If the source control system isn't technologically superior to other competing technologies, and the community is the differentiating factor, but the community is one that I'm not extremely enamored with, wouldn't I be wise to stay away?
Maybe what you're saying is that in fact the community is not that important with repect to GitHub. It's a web front end for source control and it's really good, period. In that case, maybe it's worth another look. Although again, pretty much the only people I hear talking about GitHub are Ruby folks, and most of what they talk about is how GitHub is great because of the Ruby community.
Having used Hg and git, I do not feel they're equivalent. I feel Hg is quite a bit more friendly to new folks, however git is considerably more powerful feeling to moderately good folks. I'm honestly a little sad python people are so enamored with Hg :o(
Honestly, the "Your repo can be marked public or private" thing gives me the willies. I prefer offerings which don't support public status, so you never accidentally dump your codebase onto the internet. But if you are doing something open source, it fantastic.
I am so tired to read things like that.
Issue-tracking at github is far behind bitbucket issue tracking (try to make complex search queries... you cannot link a commit to an issue except when closing the issue... tags are nice, but i dislike having to create a tag for each milestone/release).
Wikis at Github have only been recently backed by a git repository: as far as I know, wikis at bitbucket have always been backed by a mercurial repository.
It's true that bitbucket is a lot like github and that github has a bigger and more dynamic community (from my experience, github's infrastructure is also faster), but can we leave bitbucket alone and stop the bashing?
Someone hasn't tried to use bzr on a nontrivial project. Half the threads on the emacs-devel mailing list are either complaining about bzr or asking for help because it's misbehaving. (The people who aren't complaining are the ones using the git mirror.)
For open development, it's awesome... closed - I wish so many saas providers offered self-hosted solutions with a subscription so I could at least control the hardware & it's location.
(and all you other SaaS providers out there - take note!)
I'll bet they sell scads of it to companies with more money than they know what to do with, but that seems crazy to me. As wonderful as github is, it's still just source control.
Here's hoping gitorious will get sanely installable at some point (i.e. `apt-get install gitorious`, not "oh my god": http://gitorious.org/gitorious/pages/UbuntuInstallation). I'd pay something for that.
My code (and other assets) are important to me; if it ends up on a torrent server in china, that's bad. Github's security is better than mine, but I'm not a honeypot either. Perhaps the formal probabilities are against me; I guess I'm irrational in a few ways.
Edit: appears to be back up now
I see absolutely no more than an afternoon's work to take people's work and move to a completely different remote central repo if github were to vanish from the internet one day.
The central node is a lot easier. git is not a source control system. It is a system for making a source control system. For many people, the centralized system is great.
Edit: My question goes along the same lines as dedward's.
It's hard to imagine what they'd find in a private repo that would make them more money than what they've got in https://github.com/github