On the Admin side it has been easy to get up and running for testing, the upgrades are pretty painless and come on a time based release cycle. The docs are decent and there is a rest api and the company has been very responsive to tickets we file. And it is _significantly_ cheaper than github:fi.
On the user side it hits all of the big items and the interface is useable. It doesn't have some features like GitHub's image diff or gh_pages support, but for many things there are Stash plugins that either exists or you can write. And they provide an easy way to not leak internal url's while using gravatar (http://benjamin-meyer.blogspot.com/2014/03/how-to-stop-leaki...)
The biggest downside I have at this point would be that out of the box the permissions model is not as rich/robust as gitolite. Although most Git frontend servers are no where near as rich as gitolite.
On the user side it hits all of the big items and the interface is useable. It doesn't have some features like GitHub's image diff or gh_pages support, but for many things there are Stash plugins that either exists or you can write. And they provide an easy way to not leak internal url's while using gravatar (http://benjamin-meyer.blogspot.com/2014/03/how-to-stop-leaki...)
The biggest downside I have at this point would be that out of the box the permissions model is not as rich/robust as gitolite. Although most Git frontend servers are no where near as rich as gitolite.