> That's another thing where BitBucket got it right and clean.
I'm kind of surprised that some people feel this way. GitHub has some confusing UI papercuts, but every time I find myself on a BitBucket project page I spend several second in total bafflement while my mind tries to parse their UI.
Something about the way various parts of the BitBucket UI are insufficiently distinguished makes it hard for me to tell where one part ends and another part begins.
I'm not a heavy user and I'd probably acclimate with enough exposure, but I've always thought BitBucket's general fit-and-finish has suffered in comparison to GitHub.
I like both, but I often feel that GH tries too hard to be everything to everybody. BB develops a bit slower and as a side-effect the main purpose which is source control doesn't get lost in the works.
I also prefer how BB shows the commit log (with the colorful tree on the left)
From my sparse usage of both I'd say that where bitbucket got it wrong is when they try to copy github. I would love a code host with a fast but bare HTML interface, no effects, plain links, code content on the pedestal.
I'm kind of surprised that some people feel this way. GitHub has some confusing UI papercuts, but every time I find myself on a BitBucket project page I spend several second in total bafflement while my mind tries to parse their UI.
Something about the way various parts of the BitBucket UI are insufficiently distinguished makes it hard for me to tell where one part ends and another part begins.
I'm not a heavy user and I'd probably acclimate with enough exposure, but I've always thought BitBucket's general fit-and-finish has suffered in comparison to GitHub.