Bitbucket Pipes | Hacker News Reader

Bitbucket Pipes

bitbucket.org

111 pointsmericsson38 comments

Free tier(Build minutes: 50 mins/mo)

Thanks but no thank you, meanwhile GitLab offers 2000 mins/mo

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.

Thanks for the feedback. It's greatly appreciated.

This is surprisingly low given what's out there. For comparison:

- Azure pipelines offers 1,800 minutes a month

- Google Cloud Build offers 120 minutes a day

- CircleCI offers 1000 minutes a month

Weird that they wouldn't even try to compete with these.

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.

Semaphore 2.0 offers 1,300 minutes (disclaimer: I'm a cofounder, so you can also AMA).

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.

[0] https://concourse-ci.org/resources.html [1] https://concourse-ci.org/implementing-resources.html

Why does my company need to use the stupid self hosted Bitbucket. argh.

because "security" or some bullshit.

Why does the bitbucket not saas implementation still not use the same API :|

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.

not the same codebase, one is a python code base the other a java one.

Security isn't necessarily bullshit.

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.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlassian

[2]:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/australia/encryptio...

> 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).

[1]: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joi...

Another correction, Atlassian has offices in Australia, but predominantly hosts their cloud services in the US and Europe.

the real question is, why is pipelines bitbucket cloud only?

Looks great! Is this a validation for GitHub Actions? Trying to understand whether Actions have been getting traction

Gitlab has had fully integrated CI for a long time, and there's a clear benefit to integrating it rather than just providing hooks.

Bitbucket has had CI too, with bitbucket pipelines. I think the innovation here is the UI not the idea of CI.

GitHub Actions is just GitHub implementing features others have had for quite a while. So I guess, GitHub Actions is a validation of their features.

I think GitHub Actions is picking up because of how big GitHub is.

Seems like a smart move for Atlassian. Still no dominant CI cloud provider.

Yeah, Travis and CircleCI are okay but there's still plenty of reasons to run your own.

Such as? :)

More complex test setups.

I’ve found plenty of reasons NOT to roll your own...

Do you mean don't run your own Jenkins or build your own CI system?

> Still no dominant CI cloud provider.

And that's a good thing. I don't want to be locked into providers.

Anyone getting an HTTP 403 response?

Yep.

Hi I'm from the Bitbucket product team. We're looking into it, but as a workaround if you refresh the page it should load properly.

Now, that's a very interesting response...

You guys might also want to check the signup form in Firefox. The captcha isn't loading for me.

Looks like people don't even test in Firefox now. I find issues with quite a lot of sites.

Am I still limited to 10 steps per pipeline? Because that's always been an issue for me

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.

Stopped reading at YAML.

What's wrong with YAML and what would you prefer and why?

Would like to know this as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com