Probably because Bitbucket is a terrible product. It has the worst interface of the group, and less-than-minimal support for pull requests (comments disappear when unrelated changes are made, aren’t easy to browse, aren’t related to a review; only options are approve and permanently close; code expansion doesn’t work past a certain point, and doesn’t work at all if the pull request comes from a repo you don’t have access to even though you could just merge the pull request and get it).

Also required users making private forks of paid-for organization private repos to pay again to give access to all team members at once last time I used it, but I guess that’s not relevant for open-source migration.

> only options are approve and permanently close

You can also mark it as «Need work».

Oh, nice. (This didn’t exist back when my team was on Bitbucket, sorry for the outdated info.)

Because it's a slow piece of shit with even slower support. And as others have said is really built to look good to managers.

I was wondering the same. I thought Atlassian had better rapport among devs than GitLab.

I would argue that Atlassian has better rapport with engineering manager types. Their products integrate and bundle quite nicely which is compelling for many organizations. As a dev, I'm not a fan of their UX but I've known quite a few PMs that are JIRA masters and love the fully integrated solutions Atlassian offers.

Does Atlassian have better rapport with the businessy set that often makes purchasing decisions? Yes.

Better rapport with developers? Probably not.

(and, FWIW, we use Bitbucket/Jira and honestly I'm fine with them - their updates just tend to be full of the annoying things a bad PHB would love and light on the things developers care about)

No sales people pushing the products makes it a little harder for it to be a push down from the businessy-set.

No. Because they make Jira

I laughed.