The product requires patching and version improvements. Some functions do not work properly when we move from one version to another. We need a technical improvement.  Also, communicating with other Atlassian products becomes cumbersome when we move from one version to another. I want Bitbucket Server to include a dashboard similar to Jira's. Atlassian must also develop a tool to scan our complete base for vulnerabilities. 

I don't have many complaints from the developers' project.

There’s no integration of the tasks defined in Bitbucket that go to Jira. We define the task on Jira and then connect it to Bitbucket. The task or the issues defined on Bitbucket must be transported to Jira. The tasks on Bitbucket must be automatically integrated into Jira.

There are instances when I interact with Bitbucket and encounter a situation where I've pushed changes to the website server. However, when I access my branch on the website server, I notice that the changes are not immediately reflected. Enhancing the real-time reflection of changes online is an area that could benefit from improvement.

It would have been better to use Bitbucket Server if it had something similar to the concept called GitHub Actions since it allows GitHub to provide seamless integration of CI/CD pipelines.

Bitbucket Server can experience performance issues when pushing a large amount of code. This process may take a considerable amount of time.

We had issues in terms of logs, URLs, and cloning the repositories, which is the same issue we keep facing in our company though we manage to resolve it each time. The aforementioned problems make the solution a bit tricky, so it would be great if Bitbucket could provide users with a smoother approach or process when they face an issue. At the moment, there are not many details on how to proceed with the troubleshooting if one of the users faces an issue with the product.

The solution's user interface could be improved because it's not very user-friendly or intuitive. It feels like old HTML blocks were used to build the user interface.

Some supporting documentation for Bitbucket Server would be helpful because it's not very easy to get information about it. I remember having to Google a few times to figure out how to do something on Bitbucket Server.

It would be useful if we were able to work and manage other tickets; for example, if I were to use Jira, Confluence, or Bitbucket, all from a command-line standpoint, in addition to the web interface, it would be incredibly helpful.

I know that there are tools, packages, and different plugins that I can use to collaborate from a command-line standpoint, or through other tools, but putting the functionality into a new version would definitely help.

Some of the capabilities that I am looking for from a command line are not really available.

The product interface consists of multiple features that are complicated to navigate for new users. They could make it easier to access and introduce templates with sample code for beginners to understand Kubernetes deployment.

Bitbucket Server has limited user support for its free version. It is expensive. 

Will let you know in a couple months. Still in the process of evaluating the product.

More input/visibility to what features are important to other Enterprise customers (without providing enough details to determine who the enterprise customer is). Being able to react if a certain feature is of extreme importance and work to bring more light to that request at Atlassian. i.e. we saw a feature that had been heavily requested by customers that was very important to us and having a TAM didn’t get us much traction on getting this feature.

Key areas of improvement that I would like to see are:

1) Stash Data Center provides horizontal scaling within a single data center (i.e. low latency between components, components share a database and backend storage). Stash Data Center is missing “remote site” capabilities – whether more like a Git CDN where it can cache content at the remote sites, authorize the fetches from the central site, and then serve locally at LAN speed, rather than WAN speed, or whether like Stash Data Center horizontal scalability, but allowing long-distant (higher latency) links, and separate database and backend storage that is local to the site that it is hosted at.

2) More access control capabilities including granular access, and ability to do such things as enforce the use of Pull Requests for all merges.

3) More process enforcement capabilities, such as ensuring that particular people Approve a Pull Request before it can be Merged, or that a JIRA is associated with the Pull Request before it is allowed to be merged. In the mean-time, it looks like we will need to implement this for ourselves.

4) Missing commit graph feature should be integrated into main product.

5) Missing statistics and graphs similar to what Crucible provides.

6) Large file support. I know this is a Git architecture problem. However, I think the community needs to solve this problem, and having a hosting solution like Stash may offer options if the community could agree on what the solution should be. For example, I believe Mercurial support for big files is often done by treating large files as links to a central resources for the file content, and then the file content is downloaded on demand. Perhaps a type of light-weight clone where large file versions can be downloaded on demand only.

Instead of providing only raw features and plugins, Atlassian should provide a ready-to-use integration of both choices to incorporate "trunk-based" development. For example:

• JIRA / Bitbucket / Bamboo 

or

• JIRA / Bitbucket / CloudBees-Jenkins

It is a Java application and runs its own SSH server, and that means that there is a certain overhead on your system. Besides that, Stash really does what it should do.