Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Bitbucket vs Crucible: What are the differences?
Introduction
In this Markdown document, we will provide a comparison between Bitbucket and Crucible, emphasizing their key differences.
Integration with Development Workflow: Bitbucket is primarily a Git-based version control system that allows developers to collaborate and manage their code repositories. It provides features like pull requests, code reviews, and continuous integration integrations. On the other hand, Crucible is a peer code review tool that integrates with various version control systems, including Git, Mercurial, and Subversion. It focuses specifically on facilitating and managing code reviews throughout the development process.
Code Review Scope: Bitbucket offers code review capabilities within the context of a pull request. It allows developers to review, discuss, and approve changes proposed in a pull request before merging them into the main codebase. In contrast, Crucible provides a separate platform dedicated solely to conducting code reviews. It allows developers to submit code for review, invite reviewers, and discuss code changes in a collaborative environment.
Review Workflow: In Bitbucket, the code review process is tightly coupled with the pull request workflow. Whenever changes are proposed through a pull request, reviewers can provide feedback, request changes, or approve the changes directly within the pull request interface. Conversely, Crucible provides a more flexible review workflow. Developers can create code review tasks independent of any version control system, compare code revisions side-by-side, leave comments, and manage the overall review process.
Support for Different Version Control Systems: Bitbucket is primarily designed for Git-based version control systems and provides seamless integration with Git repositories. It also supports Mercurial repositories. On the other hand, Crucible is not limited to a specific version control system and supports multiple options like Git, Mercurial, and Subversion. This allows teams using different version control systems to benefit from Crucible's code review capabilities.
Pricing Model: Bitbucket offers a freemium model where users can choose between the free plan and paid plans based on their requirements and team size. The free plan has limits on the number of users and repositories, while the paid plans offer additional features and scalability. Crucible, on the other hand, follows a per-user pricing model. It charges an annual fee per user, regardless of the number of repositories, which might be more cost-effective for larger teams.
Feature Set: Bitbucket offers a wider range of features beyond code review, including issue tracking, project management, and integrations with various third-party tools. It aims to provide a comprehensive solution for software development teams. Crucible, on the other hand, focuses solely on code review functionality, offering advanced features like custom review templates, metrics, and reporting capabilities, providing in-depth insights into the code review process.
In summary, Bitbucket and Crucible differ in terms of their integration with the development workflow, code review scope, review workflow, support for different version control systems, pricing model, and feature set. These differences allow teams to choose the tool that aligns better with their specific needs and development processes.
We are using a Bitbucket server, and due to migration efforts and new Atlassian community license changes, we need to move to a new self-hosted solution. The new data-center license for Atlassian, available in February, will be community provisioned (free). Along with that community license, other technologies will be coming with it (Crucible, Confluence, and Jira). Is there value in a paid-for license to get the GitHub Enterprise? Are the tools that come with it worth the cost?
I know it is about $20 per 10 seats, and we have about 300 users. Have other convertees to Microsoft's tools found it easy to do a migration? Is the toolset that much more beneficial to the free suite that one can get from Atlassian?
So far, free seems to be the winner, and the familiarization with Atlassian implementation and maintenance is understood. Going to GitHub, are there any distinct challenges to be found or any perks to be attained?
These are pretty competitive, and to recommend one over the other would require understanding your usage. Also, what other tools you use: for instance, what do you use for Issue-tracking, or for build pipelines. In your case, since you are already using Bitbucket, the question would be: do you have any current pain-points? And, on the other hand, do you already use Atlassian's JIRA, where you'd benefit from the tight integration? So, though I would not recommend one over the other just in general,. But, if Bitbucket fulfills your current use-cases, then there seems to be little motivation to move.
Hi, I need advice. In my project, we are using Bitbucket hosted on-prem, Jenkins, and Jira. Also, we have restrictions not to use any plugins for code review, code quality, code security, etc., with bitbucket. Now we want to migrate to AWS CodeCommit, which would mean that we can use, let's say, Amazon CodeGuru for code reviews and move to AWS CodeBuild and AWS CodePipeline for build automation in the future rather than using Jenkins.
Now I want advice on below.
- Is it a good idea to migrate from Bitbucket to AWS Codecommit?
- If we want to integrate Jira with AWS Codecommit, then how can we do this? If a developer makes any changes in Jira, then a build should be triggered automatically in AWS and create a Jira ticket if the build fails. So, how can we achieve this?
Hi Kavita. It would be useful to explain in a bit more detail the integration to Jira you would like to achieve. Some of the Jira plugins will work with any git repository, regardless if its github/bitbucket/gitlab.
I first used BitBucket because it had private repo's, and it didn't disappoint me. Also with the smooth integration of Jira, the decision to use BitBucket as a full application maintenance service was as easy as 1, 2, 3.
I honestly love BitBucket, by the looks, by the UI, and the smooth integration with Tower.
Do you review your Pull/Merge Request before assigning Reviewers?
If you work in a team opening a Pull Request (or Merge Request) looks appropriate. However, have you ever thought about opening a Pull/Merge Request when working by yourself? Here's a checklist of things you can review in your own:
- Pick the correct target branch
- Make Drafts explicit
- Name things properly
- Ask help for tools
- Remove the noise
- Fetch necessary data
- Understand Mergeability
- Pass the message
- Add screenshots
- Be found in the future
- Comment inline in your changes
Read the blog post for more detailed explanation for each item :D
What else do you review before asking for code review?
One of the magic tricks git performs is the ability to rewrite log history. You can do it in many ways, but git rebase -i is the one I most use. With this command, It’s possible to switch commits order, remove a commit, squash two or more commits, or edit, for instance.
It’s particularly useful to run it before opening a pull request. It allows developers to “clean up” the mess and organize commits before submitting to review. If you follow the practice 3 and 4, then the list of commits should look very similar to a task list. It should reveal the rationale you had, telling the story of how you end up with that final code.
Pros of Bitbucket
- Free private repos905
- Simple setup397
- Nice ui and tools349
- Unlimited private repositories342
- Affordable git hosting240
- Integrates with many apis and services123
- Reliable uptime119
- Nice gui87
- Pull requests and code reviews85
- Very customisable58
- Mercurial repositories16
- SourceTree integration14
- JIRA integration12
- Track every commit to an issue in JIRA10
- Deployment hooks8
- Best free alternative to Github8
- Automatically share repositories with all your teammates7
- Source Code Insight7
- Compatible with Mac and Windows7
- Price6
- Login with Google5
- Create a wiki5
- Approve pull request button5
- Customizable pipelines4
- #2 Atlassian Product after JIRA4
- Unlimited Private Repos at no cost3
- Also supports Mercurial3
- Continuous Integration and Delivery3
- Mercurial Support2
- Multilingual interface2
- Teamcity2
- Open source friendly2
- Issues tracker2
- IAM2
- Academic license program2
- IAM integration2
Pros of Crucible
- JIRA Integration5
- Post-commit preview4
- Has a linux version2
- Pre-commit preview1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Bitbucket
- Not much community activity19
- Difficult to review prs because of confusing ui17
- Quite buggy15
- Managed by enterprise Java company10
- CI tool is not free of charge8
- Complexity with rights management7
- Only 5 collaborators for private repos6
- Slow performance4
- No AWS Codepipelines integration2
- No more Mercurial repositories1
- No server side git-hook support1
Cons of Crucible
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is Bitbucket?
What is Crucible?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
What companies use Crucible?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
What tools integrate with Crucible?
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Blog Posts
+4
+32+34