This was one of the main reasons I moved from bitbucket to gitlab. I hit my 50 mins in a week and was completely disappointed. After using gitlab for a year I’m really glad I left bitbucket. Gitlab has a great product.
I think the main reason they don't try is for Atlassian the enterprise market is the most important market. How many enterprises really care about the free tier?
Also aren't free tier customers the most costily in terms of support, etc?
50 mins seems perfect for a trial to see if you want to purchase it.
Seems somewhat similar to resources[0] in Concourse in that they use a container image that has a defined entry point.
Concourse refers to this as a "get step"[1] or a "put step", which calls a pre-defined script inside the container with a custom set of parameters. The "put step" is used when you expect side effects, while a "get step" is used to check status on some resource and trigger jobs.
In general it makes the CI/CD system easily composable and clean. Concourse manages this very well and while I haven't used Bitbucket Pipes I suspect it to be a good experience as well.
CI/CD presents a significant risk and it's not like CI/CD vendors have never had a security incident. Not to mention the unpublished access a member of their staff may have to interfer with your runners or pull your access tokens/secrets.
If an org is more comfortable having their own people assume this risk, I think the gitlab helm chart is better solution. At the same time, a small org, without the resources to properly look after this in-house, should use a SaaS vendor.
Plus Atlassian is located in Australia [1], and the Australian government passed a bill that requires a backdoor to all software products [2]. So if you care about security, it makes more sense to self-host.
> Australian government passed a bill that requires a backdoor to all software products
That's not quite accurate. There is now a legal mechanism that allows certain government agencies to force you to add a backdoor to your product. But until you are given a notice you don't need to do anything, and you can provide aggregated statistics to your users of how many requests you've been given. There are also some weasel-word caveats (the backdoor cannot be a "systemic vulnerability" but there has been much disagreement about whether this limitation actually means anything -- in my view it's basically meaningless within the context of a single company's product).
There is currently a review process open for the TOLA Act that closes in April[1], so any fellow Australians on HN should submit their comments -- there are only 65 submissions so far (and only 27 are by individuals).
The saas and self-hosted versions don't even have the same features.
For example, there's a two year old open "high priority" ticket for adding the ability to restrict pushes to branch patterns, yet still allow new branches to be created, for the saas product. The self-hosted version has apparently had this feature before the ticket was opened.
I think so! I am reluctantly using it currently, it’s simplicity is great if your just building, testing and deploying to a couple of environments. So maybe it’s just good enough for most, and that’s fine. However, It’s practically useless, and wholly frustrating as soon as you want to build any remotely functional CD pipeline. Fan out, fan in? No chance. Build step history? Nope. Random step failures and wait times to pull images? Yeah, loads of them. To top it off, it’s all part of Bitbuckets incredibly slow platform where pages take up to 10 seconds to load. My favourite part of it all the discussion forums and 7+ year old feature requests for things like commit signing.
Thanks but no thank you, meanwhile GitLab offers 2000 mins/mo