Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Software Programming Technology

Code Repository Atlassian Buys Competitor BitBucket 150

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Code Repository Atlassian Buys Competitor BitBucket

Comments Filter:
  • Code Repository? (Score:5, Informative)

    by nacturation ( 646836 ) * <nacturation @ g m ail.com> on Friday October 01, 2010 @02:48AM (#33756312) Journal

    Atlassian is a corporation, not a code repository.

  • Mercurial [selenic.com] is just as free, and just as easy to set up. Code hosting repositories are about someone else managing your connectivity, storage and backups for you, not about them building DVCS software for you.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01, 2010 @05:10AM (#33756738)

    Suppose developer A merges the master branch into a development branch (which is not ready for merging into the master).

    Then why do it? He should clone the master branch and work with that. Branching in git is a non-issue, it's that cheap.

    Developer B then accidentally pushes the development branch onto the master.

    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.

    Furthermore, there's a distinction (which you're not making) between the master branch in each of those repositories and the master repository (usually referred to as "origin", not "master", for this exact reason).

    So, should B push changes to the dev branch to the upstream (origin) repository, it has nothing to do with what A has been doing in his own private repository in the meantime.

    This is now a fast-forward merge, so no additional commit will be created, and the mistake is not attributable to developer B (and it will look like developer A's mistake, because their commit will appear at the tip).

    First of all, non-fast-forward pushes are not allowed by default. You have to override and force the push manually. Which is frowned upon or downright forbidden (since it destroys history information on the recipient repository) and the consequences will range from a bop on the head to decapitation, depending on your project/workplace policies.

    Second, I don't know of what VCS you are speaking, since you're obviously not familiar with git and/or have been using it in a very awkward setup. Basically, what you're describing is not a fault in git, just an very dumb usage scenario.

    If you've managed to prove anything is that git is too flexible for its own good and that it can be misused in creative ways. :/

  • by Ouija ( 93401 ) on Friday October 01, 2010 @07:37AM (#33757198)

    You are remiss in not mentioning github.com [github.com] which does the favor of free, immediate online hosting of OSS projects and content under git. I don't know how many presenters I've seen with their slides and demo code all on github. It's the killer app that makes git really rock.

  • Re:Git (Score:3, Informative)

    by Omnifarious ( 11933 ) * <(gro.suoirafinmo) (ta) (hsals-cire)> on Friday October 01, 2010 @09:19AM (#33757834) Homepage Journal

    You should give Mercurial [selenic.com] a try. The thing that got me to use it in 2005, when it was pre-1.0, was how clean and obvious the command line interface was. I don't generally use graphical tools for development work, so I can't gauge the various GUIs available for it, but I do know that a lot of people like TortoiseHG [bitbucket.org].

    I've used Perforce as well, and it has its strange quirks and complexities too, though I agree that git's command line interface leaves a great deal to be desired in comparison. I think Mercurial's command line interface is more intuitive and clearer than Perforce's.

  • by Courageous ( 228506 ) on Friday October 01, 2010 @09:49AM (#33758080)

    Their wiki is pleasant to use and a snap to manage. All of their products are quite affordable to any corporation. Typically something like $8K will get you an unlimited user edition. Sometimes less, depends on which product.


Help! I'm trapped in a PDP 11/70!