Code Repository Atlassian Buys Competitor BitBucket

Roblimo writes "Wow. Atlassian sent press releases out about this, and we're happy for them. But isn't Git easy to install and use — for free, even if your project is proprietary and secret, not open source and public? Whatever. Some people seem to feel better about proprietary software than about FOSS, and the majority of Atlassian's business comes from meeting the needs of behind-the-firewall, proprietary code repositories. At least Atlassian has free versions of its repository for FOSS and small-scale proprietary developers. Which is sort of nice."

Comments

Git

[spec8472]

"But isn't Git easy to install and use"
Yes, for certain users and environments.
In my experience, The folks who use Mercurial are more likely to be on Windows.

Mercurial tooling isn't as polished as the Subversion equivalents, but it's lightyears ahead of the Git tooling.

I'd be happy enough to pay for good Git tooling on Windows, but there doesn't appear to be a way to do so. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Git

[BasilBrush]

You're right.

But isn't Git easy to install and use -- for free, even if your project is proprietary and secret, not open source and public? Whatever. Some people seem to feel better about proprietary software than about FOSS

Git does the job. But no, it isn't easy to use. It has an unintuitive set of commands, and various rudimentary, half-assed, poorly designed visual apps.

e.g.
git reset --soft HEAD^
WTF?

The proprietary Perforce dates from an earlier generation of SCM, and has a single code repository, rather than a distributed scheme. But it's commands and it's visual tool feel like they were actually designed. They are easy to learn, and need far less referring back to the manual. That's one of the reasons why people "feel better about proprietary software than FOSS".

Re:Git

[yuriks]

It has perfectly fine branching, see http://stevelosh.com/blog/2009/08/a-guide-to-branching-in-mercurial/

On another note, what kind of retarded wrote the summary? It makes no mention of who Atlassian or what Bitbucket are and instead spends time being an inflammatory git apology that doesn't even make any sense given that Mercurial is also opensource and free.

- a git/github and hg/bitbucket user

Wow.

[FuckingNickName]

I can't understand what the article summary is getting at. A reposting of a press release? An expression of /.'s parent company's interest in some organisation? Or a "tweet" accidentally posted as a /. article? A side effect of think-aloud sleep-typing?

Re:Wow.

[dncsky1530]

Yea I don't know what is going on today but the quality of many of these summaries has been awful. This one tops it off with numerous mistakes in the title alone.

I'm also not sure what Roblimo's problem with Atlassian or proprietary software is; from my experience Atlassian produces fairly good software and charges far less than competitors.

Also, how about linking to the actual press release or a news story that contains more than commentary?

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't understand what the article summary is getting at. A side effect of think-aloud sleep-typing?

I'd go with the sleep typing, but with the caveat that it's a brain-addled crack baby doing the sleep typing.

the majority of Atlassian's business comes from meeting the needs of behind-the-firewall, proprietary code repositories

That came straight out of Roblimo's crackpipe. So the majority of Atlassian's business comes from meeting the needs of proprietary code repositories? I didn't know that code repositories had needs, but I guess advanced ones like fanboy Roblimo's Git have gained sentience and are making demands, which Atlassian now makes the majority of its money from. By, uh... servicing the demands those repositories are making. Or... something.

Atlassian's cash cow has always been Jira, its bug tracker.

I think Roblimo's lost his marbles or something. The only point of this piece-o-shit article is to bash proprietary software and blow his FOSS horn out of his butthole like a Stallman-scented vuvuzela.

Re:Wow.

[kiwimate]

No kidding. I am not one who usually comments on article submissions or the quality of the summary - I just ignore articles if I'm not interested in them - but this summary would (hopefully) be marked as troll if it was read as a comment. Given that something this rubbishy is posted by a /. editor, it's driving me to read /. less and less these days. Rationale - if this tripe is what makes it on to the front page, and from an editor, then my assurance of the quality of what's posted and what's left out is way down. What other value does /. have for me?

Last Straw

[Seakip18]

That's it. I'm doing what others have done and blocking kdawson. This summary is crap and should never have been posted.

Re:Git lacks tracking capabilities

[Florian Weimer]

Which development branch? B's? You do realise that since git is distributed, A's and B's and the master upstream repositories are three completely distinct repositories.

Most projects (even non-corporate ones) have a shared, centralized repository to which more than person can push, so the push attribution problem arises.

One reason for centralized repositories is that you cannot have decentralized deployment. Your organization has only got one www.example.org server (cluster), so eventually, there is a very strong constraint which linearizes development. Certain build and testing infrastructure also strongly favors linearity.

First of all, non-fast-forward pushes are not allowed by default.

After the merge, it is a fast-forward push, and the server cannot distinguish it from new, legitimate development. The problem is not that Git doesn't prevent the push (after all, you need to be able to get new commits into the repository). The problem is that out of the box, Git does not keep track of who pushes what. Out of band solutions exist, and those hosters typically provide that.