Git Reviews

We use the tool to store codes. 

Our team members can work together and save the code in a single repository. 

The product needs to improve its UI. 

I am using the tool for four to five years. 

The product is stable. 

My company has more than 1000 users for the solution. 

The software's technical support is good. 

Positive

The product's initial setup is easy. 

The tool is an open-source product. 

I would rate the product a ten out of ten. 

The primary use case is to keep track of changes and maintain control, and it helps contain your code and is useful for collaboration.

One feature I find valuable is that it's a one-shot solution. Also, every software company has a requirement to use Git.

I am trying to understand why they removed the credential because it has been a great feature. But yeah, that's not looking good on me. Moreover, Git should increase security to reduce risk. 

Another improvement could be that it is easy to install but complex to set up.

I have been using this solution for ten years. We always use the latest version in our company.

It is a stable solution that has been fine for me for ten years.

I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. Everyone can use it, and there are over 200 uses in my company.

The initial setup is a bit complex because it is open source.

We deployed it from some commands, which took just a few seconds. It's open source, so there is no need for a consultant.

Many tutorials are available online, and one should search for them and go through them before doing anything.

Overall, I would rate it a ten out of ten.

We use the solution for two purposes: first, we collaborate with the DevOps team, sharing our code; and second, we commit to a local repository, then push it to the distribution repository.

The most valuable feature is having access to the local country repository even if we have problems with distance access.

The UI can be more user-friendly.

I have been using the solution for two years.

I give the stability a ten out of ten.

I give the scalability a nine out of ten.

We have thousands of users.

We switched to Git because we had distance access issues with our previous solution.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

I recommend the solution to other users. 

I use the solution for website management. 

The tool's user interface is terrible. It needs to be more user-friendly. 

I have been using the product for ten years. 

I used a version control software called Bazaar. I switched to Git since everyone is using it. 

The tool's setup is straightforward. I could complete the solution's deployment in two minutes. 

The tool is free. 

I would rate the solution a five out of ten. There are better solutions out there than Git. 

We use the product for software development and version control. It helps us to maintain a safe repository of our development. 

Git offers the ability to roll back to the previous version. You can also track all the small changes that you do. 

The tool is complicated for a beginner. You need to have some training to use it. It is also hard to find a parameter. 

I have been working with the solution for seven years. 

The product is stable. 

There is no technical support since we use the open source version. We find support mainly on the forums. 

We use the open source version. 

I would rate the product an eight out of ten. The product is the best in the industry. 

Git is used for version control.

Our extensive IT department collaborates on various projects, utilizing Git to manage versions effectively. One significant advantage is the ability to maintain multiple versions of the same code, even when offline. This is particularly beneficial in scenarios where internet connectivity is not available, enabling individuals to work on their code seamlessly. Ultimately, this is a crucial benefit for our team's productivity and market competitiveness.

All of the features in Git are useful.

The solution could improve by having more customization.

I have been using Git for a few years.

The stability is good.

I rate the stability of Git a ten out of ten.

We have approximately 500 people using the solution.

The solution is scalable.

I have not used the support.

I have used solutions prior to Git.

The setup of Git is straightforward. The time it takes to set up depends on the size of the project.

When we're doing things manually, but now we use automation tools. When there is a request made it is automated and deployed in the project.

We did the implementation in-house. We have a team that handles the implementation.

A few people in each team have to do the maintenance of the solution.

I would recommend people start using Git. Users can work on an offline copy without internet connectivity and later sync their changes once online. This process is effortless and speedy. Additionally, it is highly secure. After setting up an Azure account, integration with other tools is possible, allowing for continuous integration and deployment.

I rate Git out of ten.

We use Git for version control for programs. 

To have programming projects and keeping track of the copays is always it's always nice to have to be able to reverse changes if they don't work.

I am doing my CV and I am also tracking it with GIt.

I believe it is beneficial to maintain a detailed log or history of who did what to a project and which user committed to the change.

The program is run from your shell and I am comfortable with that.

You have Git Lab as a platform, which is just Git with a web interface. I believe that is already well integrated.

More security is always welcome in my opinion.

I have been working with Git for two years. I use it occasionally.

I am working with the most recent version.

I would rate the stability of Git a ten out of ten.

In my opinion, Git is a scalable solution.

It is used for Linux, which I believe is the largest open-source project we have running right now.

I don't believe they offer technical support.

I have used Confluence and Jira from Atlassian.

The initial setup is straightforward. You initialize the repo in your code base, and you start committing changes.

It doesn't take very long to deploy it, a few seconds. It's a single connection.

It can be deployed by anyone who is using it.

Git is completely free.

I would definitely recommend using Git.

My advice to others is that it is a good idea to read the manual.

I would rate Git a ten out of ten.

The features I am most impressed by is the automation, and when we do the pull requests, everything gets indicated on there in terms of the deployment steps and full-on automated deployment. We have found that the standard level for DevOps in terms of automated deployment is 30 minutes. So we actually hit that in 30 minutes, which was great.

I would like to see an improvement in the way the product owner can review changes and so forth. But I believe there are licensing costs related to that. It would be better to keep everything simple with one standard license fee.  

There wasn't any instability at all because when we did our first automation deployment, we hit 100% with zero bugs introduced. That was really, really good. I just think we must get the automated testing right. We don't have that many seasoned automated tests and therefore we did all the full-on regression testing that was needed, went into production and had zero defects.

We have about 40 to 50 users and 12 testers, and so far it has been very scalable. We plan to increase our usage in the future.

We have monitors in place for our usual business so if anything goes down, there is an immediate response to look at that from a proactive perspective to see what is affected. In terms of from a testing perspective, through change, it is a database issue or anything like that. In terms of support, we have two sections of support. One for terms of DevOps where we have a operations person responsible for this. And when we put the software into production, we have someone on standby to ensure that everything is in perfect working condition. 

There are other options in the greater part of our environments. But since we were working on Microsoft from the start, it just was easier to continue that way. It was a new department being established and we wanted to start off that way, rather than moving from an old state to a new state. It takes longer and the change management is greater.

Our technical team will be able to tell you exactly, but I believe they found some problems around the installation and so forth. I do know that it took them a while to actually get the automated deployment right before they could actually execute it. Perhaps the developers can make it easier in terms of getting readiness for automation deployment. It was quite complex and it took us about a day and a half. However, if you do a manual deployment, it doesn't take that long.

My advice to others would be to implement it correctly and do whatever your unit test brings back in terms of an approach. Fix that first and then start with your coding. That is how you ensure quality.

I would say that you should start afresh. Instead of trying the squad branching, do the release branching, and work from there. Don't be wary of actually starting on DevOps. Sometimes people are wary of the unknown but it adds a lot of value if you go with the CDCI approach. 

It is a great product and my rating is eight out of ten.