This is really bad as Atlassian is like a prize winning show pony -- great marketing and webinars but once you get deeply into the product usage you find all sorts of problems and open issues. BitBucket has been waiting for 2FA for 5 years! Bambo was recently semi-retired going against a lot of users investments. And these are just recent.
I would not expect wonderful things for Trello and thankfully it appears they got their money out up front.
My words of advice to anyone looking is to stay away from Atlassian at all costs. Once your in too deep you probably are trapped - which is what they count on.
I love their response to open issues like: we'd like to be able to delete pull requests.
Response: what a silly notion, no
Or another one I found recently: we'd like to comment on code that isn't within 10 lines of a changed file. You know, because one line change in file a can impact stuff elsewhere. Or even in another project but the chances of that happening are more slim than a tachyon hitting an atom as it passes through earth.
Response: Good idea, here's stuff we did this year, and here's other stuff we do. (aka the non committal middle finger)
It sucks because atlassian products are 80% of the way there, but the final 20% polish never seems to arrive. And its been years.
We appreciate the frank feedback, but I have to disagree with the interpretation.
I really hate that we can't say yes to every feature suggestion, and what we _are_ able to talk about seems to come across as non-committal to some. The fact that a suggestion is open means we think it has merit too (we close "silly notions"), it then becomes a matter of priorities.
That may be the case. However when such tickets are open for 6-7 years with no update the general viewpoint everyone I know that uses Bitbucket has is that it will never be a priority to Atlassian.
Adding things like large file storage support is cool, I guess, but when you never use it its rather a case of appearing to prioritize certain market segments over others.
I know I've read the article that states how you prioritize, with a major one being usage patterns. But I wonder just how accurate a metric that is given in my specific group, we've started to avoid using the review tooling in bitbucket because its almost impossible to use to accomplish the goal.
Unless the idea is for Bitbucket to have a completely minimal set of features and for anything useful to pay license fees for plugins I can't quite make sense of how the priorities are decided.
I think you've hit on a really important point. In isolation, a particular suggestion might be something of a papercut with a workaround. An unwanted pull request, for example, isn't going to stop others from getting their work done. But, if there are enough of these things that happen to affect a team together, it all adds up. It sounds your team is in that boat, and people not wanting to use the review functionality is a serious concern. Whether or not that's uniquely the case, I'd love to discuss further to make sure I properly understand your experience. If you're willing, please email me (rbarnes atlassian com) and we can set up a call.
>atlassian products are 80% of the way there, but the final 20% polish never seems to arrive
This was kind of my synopsis when I looked at implementing them back in 2009. My take was that they built out 80% of the platform and then expected the customers/users to build out the extra 20% for each other.
Trello, amazing because of it's small size and limited, elegant feature set. Atlassian, awful because they won't implement everything that their customers ask for. Oh and the only feature that you've pointed out that's missing, 2fa, it's not missing. It's been in place for literally years.
The open issue tracker that Atlassian maintains is there so that you can see things that they've said no to. You can actually dig in and find out if someone else has asked for a feature that you want. You can see, completely transparently, whether or not they might implement it. The things that Trello has been asked to build but has quietly and privately said no to? No where to be found (and reasonably so given comments like this one).
Using a companies transparency against them is gross. It shows a lack of empathy for the people who build these systems, the trade offs that they have to make and the responsible decisions they make to not implement every single feature request. JIRA is enterprise software, it's incredibly extensible and configurable. The fact that some people configure it poorly isn't entirely their fault (though sane defaults can solve for some of this problem). Trello is for small teams. It's compact and simple in ways that JIRA was never intended to be. The $425MM? That means Atlassian understands that Trello has captured a part of they didn't.
I quite like Confluence (as in, better than Sharepoint as Wiki in enterprise gigs). But I'm always wondering if Confluence customers are aware that they're creating a huge data silo for their knowledge base documents that can only be accessed using proprietary Confluence software for years to come.
The XML created by Confluence is _very_ portable. If you're using Confluence plugins create buy propriety vendors (Gliffy, Balsamiq etc.) then perhaps you're doing some of what you describe.
The actual content that's in Confluence though, much more portable than anything you're going to get out of another enterprise software vendor.
I spent quite a few hours trying to set up Atlassian's dashboard called Atlasboard, it was pretty awful. It relies on git submodules for extensibility. All of the plugins I tried were horrible, both 3rd party ones and the 1st party Atlassian ones.
I would not expect wonderful things for Trello and thankfully it appears they got their money out up front.
My words of advice to anyone looking is to stay away from Atlassian at all costs. Once your in too deep you probably are trapped - which is what they count on.