1. Bitbucket Website
  2. Public Issue Tracker
  3. master


Issue #5652 open

allow for pull requests to require approval (BB-6920)

Devon IT
created an issue

We would like to modify our workflow to require that a pull request requires as least two approvals from the team in order to merge into our master tree. Is this is already possible with bitbucket?

Obviously we can simply tell our project leads not to accept a pull request until two approvals show up, but we try to maintain a team-based mentality where no single member has totalitarian control. Having said that, it is sometimes difficult to ensure that every single change that makes it in has indeed been reviewed by multiple parties.

Official response

  • Ben Echols staff

    Unfortunately we've hit a snag, and this feature will be delayed. I'm truly sorry for the delay - we're making an effort to communicate better, and I recognize this is frustrating.

    I'll post updates here when we have more to share.

Comments (59)

  1. Devon IT reporter

    I am often confused by Atlassian's offerings.. We have been moved from FeCru to Bitbucket, yet it seems that Stash provides the same features as Bitbucket plus some fine grained control?

    Why was this not discussed in the migration documentation? Furthermore, why are there two products that provide git support from Atlassian instead of having, for example, an "enterprise" package for bitbucket? We'd probably pay for it.

    Also, is Stash a hosted solution?

    Finally, I'm a bit put off as a paying customer that the answer to this is simply "we're not going to do that." We're developers, can we help? Is there a way for me to get the community to upvote this feature to impress upon you that it may be worth the development time? In fact, because you already have the ability to approve a pull request, it occurs to me that something like this might not be such a technical hurdle. If not here, where does one go to pursue a feature like this?

  2. Wyatt Anderson

    Wow, I didn't even know Stash existed. We were also migrated to Bitbucket from OnDemand SVN and would probably have gladly switched to Stash if it was available as a hosted solution.

    I'll echo the desire for an "enterprise" package for BitBucket.

  3. Doron Gill

    Echoing everything said here. Having this feature would be great. The move to Stash does not help as its not available as part of the onDemand suite. Atlassian should get its act together as far as treating its customers better

  4. Pawan Agarawal

    Our team could really, really use this feature, as well. With a growing team and lots of people trying to merge code, it would be very nice to be capable of putting some restraints on when people can merge to minimize the risk of breaking master.

  5. Richard Simpson

    Agreeing with previous comments. If I have to spin up Stash on local infrastructure just to use this feature, I'd much rather use GitHub Enterprise then dealing with that hassle. I imagine a lot of smaller business feel exactly the same way.

  6. Zachary Davis [Atlassian] staff

    This isn't currently planned. However, we have an upcoming project that this may be a part of. I'll know more once planning for that project gets under way.

    If not sooner, I'll be back in a month to provide another update.

  7. jasongerard81

    With 110 votes, this really should have higher priority. The plugin for Stash which required x number of approvals before merge was the only way I was able to even get git passed my security and compliance auditor at my last organization. Features like this will do nothing but increase your enterprise adoption.

  8. Scott Wang

    all stash or (bitbucket server) functionality should be added to Bitbucket, two code bases shouldn't be an excuses. Both are paid solutions, the only difference to me is one hosted by Atlasssian and one hosted by your own, but the functionality of each shall be the same.

  9. Nenad Mikša

    +1 We also need that feature.

    Btw, isn't BitBucket cloud run by the same software as BitBucket Server/Stash? So why is this feature disabled in BitBucket Cloud?

  10. ped zed

    We're working on this! I don't have a firm delivery date, but it's in progress. I'll post a status update in May.

    At last! I was looking and waiting so long for this feature.

  11. Joshua Fox

    This would be very useful. The SAAS Bitbucket is what we need, not the hosted version, but we would like to have the ability to require two approvers, and to define the lists of people authorized for the first and second step of approval.

  12. Ben Echols staff

    We're still working on this. We're planning to support both repo and branch level controls, so you can apply some settings to a whole repo but really lock down the most critical branches. Progress has been good, but as you all know, the devil's in the details.

    More to come in June!

  13. Sean Timm

    Ben Echols - I'd love to see the PR author's self-approval optionally required as a condition for merge, though. We've been in situations where someone submits a pull request for review but doesn't intend for it to be merged quite yet and is just looking for early feedback.

  14. Sergey Pauk

    Hope that this feature also includes a "Requires all tasks to be resolved" option (it's available in BitBucket server)? Or is there another ticket for this?

  15. Ben Echols staff

    Unfortunately we've hit a snag, and this feature will be delayed. I'm truly sorry for the delay - we're making an effort to communicate better, and I recognize this is frustrating.

    I'll post updates here when we have more to share.

  16. Log in to comment