While I've been using Jira for nearly five years, I've had to back away from BitBucket several times.
First because the Documentation was simply unusable - contradictions and misleading statements everywhere!
But the stinking pit of the problem was the insane structural hierarchy of 'Projects', Users, Teams, Repositories, and the immensely ambiguous 'your work'!
I have repeatedly complained bitterly about this ridiculous 'convoluted upside-down and backwards' approach that made all the elements in the organization of the user interface and all attempts at reasoning and rationale simply impossible to anticipate and properly organize any significant pattern of repository grouping and statusing.
And most infuriating was the fact that the structural gastrointestinal shape of the verbal but non-logical relationships among the elements could never be reconciled with any repetitive workflow organization conceptualizations.... BECAUSE.... BECAUSE!!! the structure was not a representation of real-life relationships among the Source Management Components we are all familiar with!!!
They were simply a TAXONOMY: a series of words that did not possess any functional infrastructure to actually connect the 'meaning' of projects, or repositories, or teams, or any real-life operational results.
And all the changes that have been introduced in the past 5 or 6 years, each of which was touted as a 'revolutionary alteration' of the guts of Bitbucket, were simply changes in the naming of the TAXONOMIC elements with no functional changes to the way the wacky, weird, and perplexing puzzle of how to organizing our repos and their real-life relationships using this TAXONOMY represented as operational logic.
And the introduction of a NEW TAXONOMIC Element: 'WORKSPACE', still, once again, a non-functional, totally abstract Nomenclatural nothingness... demonstrates that the design team for this flimsy Interface that has yet-again decided it was too difficult to rebuild the system from the bottom up, is just selling another candy-wrapper to developers for whom they clearly have no respect.
In this subsequent re-attempt to 'bait and switch' they have stolen the NAME of an already existing element in the actual, real, substantial, and meaningful TAXONOMY of Git in all its ingenious precision and smoothly operating integrations. We already know what a WORKSPACE is, and forever OUGHT to be!
Its an artifact of a FILE SYSTEM that becomes the overall boundary of a body of code that is enabled to manage all the complex operations of the current version of GIT because of the existence of a hidden NUCLEUS containing the core operations that makes the vast numbers of Commits to a GIT Repository throughout the lifetime of a development team's determined effort to assure that GIT properly manages all the variations of ingenuity of a team's effort.
It simply is not proper for a commercial entity to misappropriate this fundamental term of our work product and the necessarily precise activities and disciplines we utilize to succeed from a design and business sense, just because they have locked themselves into a strange, totally conflicted, primitive, and inappropriate taxonomy that they continuously shuffle and surreptitiously put on and remove from the board they have been using to hide from their management their mistaken plan of renaming the clearly disorganized and unusable infrastructure of their source control application.
They need to take a year or two to really redesign this product and stop trying to camouflage their inept attempt at fooling all of us with their terminology trick.
Take a serious look at their newly revised diagrams of teams, users, repos, and their ownership/responsibility chains. It's the new version of their hoax!
I'm just going to ignore their crude attempts to emulate GitHub and just use it as a big repo. Until they get honest about this situation, I recommend everyone else do the same.
28 comments