GitHub Reviews

We have more than 100 teams in our organization using GitHub because it is a centralized repository tool. We have many interdependent applications, and GitHub provides a platform where people can share their codes in a particular directory.

GitHub's merging feature is much better than that of other products because merging is done daily. The solution's centralized administration is also very good, allowing you to onboard more than 200 or 1,000 people daily.

The solution's cost is high and should be reduced. Our company has a bundle product. Sometimes, people from outside our organization also need to collaborate with our code, and we need to integrate them as well. This causes problems for us because we also need to buy a subscription for them.

I have been using GitHub for two years.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for stability.

I rate GitHub’s scalability a nine out of ten.

The solution’s technical support is very good.

The solution’s initial setup is easy.

We took help from GitHub's support team to deploy the solution. The initial setup is not very big, but onboarding people takes time. My company has more than 20,000 users. The solution's initial setup takes around one or two days.

We pay a subscription-based yearly licensing fee for the solution. If you buy extra support, you pay an additional cost.

The solution's deployment and maintenance is very straightforward. It does not take many people to deploy the solution. The planning part is very important. If you are planning for a big team, you have to plan very well. Planning the initial architecture is very important, and it can be done by an architecture team of one to five people. GitHub is far better than other products because it has a very good backend team.

Since we use a cloud version, it helps support our team's collaboration across different locations. An organization that has a lot of documentation should utilize GitHub. Otherwise, they will lose their data. GitHub is the main product in any software development organization. AI is only for data, but processing the data from AI needs to be stored somewhere. AI requires collaborating with other tools like GitHub, a repository tool.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I use it for repositories. We use it for version control and for deployments. We use pipelines in GitHub to deploy projects in Salesforce.

GitHub is much better than similar tools like Bitbucket. It's cheaper, and resolving merge conflicts is much easier.

In complex cases, we have to use the terminal for conflict resolution. If those conflicts could be resolved visually in the editor, that would be much better.

I have been using it 

It is a stable product. I haven't encountered any bugs in the last few months.

It is a scalable product. Every developer in my company uses GitHub, so if my company has 100 developers, then 100 of them are using it.

The initial setup is very easy. 

It's cheaper than Bitbucket. Bitbucket is more expensive in terms of pipelines, which charge based on the time on the Python page in streaming.

I would recommend using it. It eliminates a lot of hassle. For example, suppose you're assigned multiple tasks. You could be working on one task and commit changes to a development branch. If something else becomes a priority, you can switch to that task and commit changes for it. This way, you have backups and can control the versions of your product.

It's beneficial for managing multiple tasks and controlling versions of your product. 

You can commit changes to branches for development, and if something is a priority, you can switch to another task and commit changes for that. 

GitHub provides a backup and allows you to control the versions of your product.

It is easy to learn. I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

The tool helps in collaboration with our team on version control, and we're very happy with it. 

I find the most valuable collaboration between our peers to be a seamless collaboration between our peers. We can connect and change our code, allowing us to be agile in our projects. Since we're talking about DevOps, we're using Jenkins in our pipeline. It helps speed up the process by automating the DevOps workflow.

Since most of our work is done remotely, I think GitHub provides a very good collaboration environment.

We want to incorporate management comments within GitHub, making it more like a product management tool. We haven't done that yet. Another change we're considering is migrating from GitHub to Azure DevOps, especially now that Microsoft has introduced it.

Since we are gradually moving to the cloud, everything should be integrated within this environment. GitHub is mostly for on-premises work, whereas Azure DevOps primarily focuses on cloud development.

The tool needs to improve its stability. 

I have been using the product for five years. 

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten. 

The solution is scalable because it is a cloud solution and always gives you room for everything you want to add. It is quite scalable and doesn't impose any constraints.

My development team has about five people. However, other teams are also using this tool. As far as I know, there are about 20 teams of five to six people each.

I haven't contacted support yet since we can find documentation online. 

We switched to GitHub because it is by Microsoft and has good integration with Azure.

The setup has a smooth learning curve. After some initial familiarity, our team is working smoothly with it, and we don't have any problems. We have a tool for monitoring the training needs of the companies we work with and providing training solutions. Another aspect is recording what our staff does, functioning as a staff management tool. Additionally, we manage records of our trainees and track their development.

The best ROI is that we are well organized and don't waste time on disputes and similar issues. Everything gets managed. 

The tool offers a free program. As you go, you can upgrade from the community version to the professional one. I believe it costs about ten dollars per person, per month.

I encourage others to use the solution because it is a viable tool. It will improve communication within the team, make all processes more agile, and provide a single central source of truth. A central reference point is crucial to avoid confusion, especially if you have multiple web services.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten. Our use of AI involves integrating a copilot within our IDEs, which helps us generate code. Additionally, we use AI strategies to assist in writing reports. We are exploring more AI solutions, and it's still a work in progress, as the technology is quite new. We are finding our path in this area, which is quite challenging.

Our customer has hundreds and thousands of applications, and 12 are part of my current project. Three of those applications are using GitHub as a code repository. The rest use Bitbucket. This customer is an Atlassian shop, so only I don't think more than 50 people use it.

Any code they develop will be version-controlled in this GitHub tool, and they use the branching and merging strategy to promote their code. We use it for version control and parallel development.  

The code in GitHub will be consumed by CI/CD pipeline for the build and deployment. We're using the latest version, which has a feature called GitHub Actions that enables CI/CD within GitHub, but this organization doesn't use GitHub Actions. They prefer Bamboo. 

The most valuable aspects of GitHub are version control and parallel development. I also appreciate the forking part, which allows us to release a specific set of features to the environment. 

Development teams can integrate this tool with their IDEs. GitHub provides command line instructions that should suffice. But customers wonder how to configure their IDE because you have to clone the repo, register the username with a password, and then switch. All those things need to be performed within the IDE. So I don't know whether those things are already available. That would enable the developer to integrate their IDEs with the GitHub repository.

The development team pushes the code into a repository, and the CI/CD pipeline will perform the build. We need open-source libraries to perform the builds. It would be helpful to have the ability to link to open-source libraries like npm libraries. I don't know if GitHub Actions provides this. I would like to see that in GitHub Actions if they don't. 

If you know the language for your build, it would be wonderful if GitHub automatically provided the link to those language-specific libraries so we don't need to search for the library. 

For example, if I'm using Node.js, I should be in a position to link it to the npm libraries associated with that version so my build using the CI pipeline will work well. Then the results in the library must go into an artifact repository. We'll have to depend on JFrog or Sonatype to provide binary repositories. Git has the repository technology, so why not offer a binary repository feature?

GitHub has a static code repository; now, GitHub Actions provides CI/CD. The resulting packages should stay somewhere. I don't know whether they have added this or not because I have not explored the GitHub Actions. They're all public libraries, and the result of the build or CI pipeline is a deployment-ready package. Where will we keep them? That's where we need a binary repository.

In addition to the binary repository, I think they could also include some vulnerability scans to ensure the code we deliver is clean. SonarQube is a static code analysis we use. There are tools coming from Fortify or Veracode that can ensure there is no security vulnerability in the code. It's a complete CA practice-related tenant. It would be wonderful if they could add this functionality.

We've used GitHub since 2013. 

GitHub performs well with the current load. I haven't had issues with the tool. 

We've never had an with the number of projects or developers using this tool. We've consistently had around a thousand developers over the years. The load will increase If a customer adds another 5,000 developers, then we may see some ups and downs in the scalability aspect of this tool, but we are all good with the scalability and stability so far.

I haven't interacted with the support team because things are working well and we've never had issues with the platform. 

We used open-source Git and later used GitLab, which is a flavor of Git. GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, and Azure Repos are all flavors of Git. The underlying version-control functionalities come from Git, but different vendors have their own flavors. I have experience in all four of these, which are Git.

I wasn't involved in the initial installation, but I installed the open-source flavor of Git, which was straightforward. Enabling the AD or LDAP is the most important thing in the enterprise setup. I have not looked into that because the customer enabled it. I never got a chance to integrate LDAP with the access management system within GitHub.

It's a GAT now. We are using the enterprise edition. I don't use open-source any longer. I have no clue because it's all owned by the customer. We are only consultants in the project, right? So we don't have access to those details.

I rate GitHub 10 out of 10. If you are using GitHub, your development team should define the branching strategy. One popular solution is Gitflow. There are different branching strategies available. You can use the main branch loan and a toggling feature development approach where one branch is sufficient. 

However, people with parallel releases need a parallel development strategy, where multiple branches will come into play. You should consider which branching strategies apply to your current industry and development strategy. Pick one of them, learn, and adopt it in your project.

I use GitHub just for remote repositories, backup, and version control. I also use local Git.

GitHub hasn't affected my productivity too much. It's more for version control, releasing updates, and managing my work. It has made managing projects easier.

GitHub is very straightforward. I really appreciate the versioning capabilities, ease of use, and the ability to host code.

The integration with Visual Studio Code could be more streamlined, as it is somewhat convoluted at times. However, it is certainly easier than using the command line.

I have been using GitHub for probably three years.

GitHub is very stable. I have never had issues with too many bugs, nor has it broken down.

Scalability hasn't really been a concern for me with GitHub. I don't have to worry about scaling to more users; it's pretty straightforward.

I have never had to contact the GitHub support team. Therefore, I cannot comment on their customer service.

Positive

Setting up GitHub takes maybe five to ten minutes.

I find GitHub's pricing quite affordable. Although I haven't used a subscription model, the subscriptions seem very reasonable and are comparable to competitors' rates such as Bitbucket.

I would suggest being familiar with Git to fully utilize GitHub to its best benefit.

I would rate it a nine out of ten.

I mostly use GitHub to save repositories that I encounter when scrolling or searching for resources. Even if they are not immediately relevant to me, I know they will be useful in the future. So, I save those repositories in my GitHub account. Whenever there is any requirement from a client or a project with a similar base, I use those repositories for the data.

GitHub has made handling repositories more manageable and helps in organizing resources effectively.

The most valuable features are the speed, low latency, and the clear, concise set of commands. GitHub is not complicated to use and is very user-friendly. It's also beginner-friendly, making it welcoming for newcomers.

There is nothing that I find that needs improvement in GitHub. The introduction of GitHub Copilot has made everything much easier and flexible.

I have been using GitHub for around two years.

GitHub is a stable product. There are no issues with stability.

I have never needed to contact GitHub's support team. I have always found alternative solutions if I encountered any issues.

Positive

If you do not have any dependencies installed and you are starting from scratch, it takes about 20 to 25 minutes to ensure everything is according to your needs. While installing other dependencies and tools, GitHub can also be installed, so it does not require extra time.

The pricing is reasonable and not expensive.

I would recommend GitHub to others as it is user-friendly and easy for beginners to adapt to and learn. The introduction of GitHub Copilot has further simplified usage.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I use GitHub for version controlling of the code. I have experience using GitHub to upload the source code and manage tasks.

GitHub has improved efficiency by being easy to use for any user, and it offers good documentation that makes it easy to follow the steps.

GitHub provides enough storage for uploading the source code. It makes it easy to push code, and the Git commands are straightforward to use. The documentation is also good, and I appreciate the CI/CD pipelines that we use for web applications to upload the application in development mode and production mode.

When I was new, I faced challenges with Git commands, such as reversing or deleting mistakes. Additionally, merging code from multiple branches can sometimes result in conflicts, which are difficult to resolve.

I have been using GitHub for five years.

I have not faced any issues with the stability of GitHub.

For large-scale projects, there can be issues when multiple employees work on the same project and need to merge code into a single branch, resulting in potential conflicts. However, it's a problem with team understanding, not GitHub itself.

GitHub's support team is really good.

Positive

I used GetStream.io earlier, but I have not implemented it in a live application.

I do not know anything about the pricing.

I would recommend GitHub to my colleagues.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

GitHub's workflow is smooth, and it integrates seamlessly with outside projects and libraries. It simplifies our entire development flow.

GitHub's source code management is top-notch. It's easy to inspect changes and visualize code and differences. Their action system is comprehensive in terms of making changes and automation.

GitHub's issue management could be improved a little from an organization standpoint. It would be helpful to have the ability to organize a work board or a backlog more comprehensively. For organizations migrating to GitHub from arbitrary systems, it's a little bit of a headache to move on to that system.

I have been using GitHub since 2009.

We've never had any performance issues with GitHub. I don't think we've had an outage yet and we've been on it for a number of years now. 

GitHub is extremely scalable. We only have about half a dozen repositories in there, but I know some organizations with hundreds working without issue. We're using it extensively. Everybody in the organization is using it, but it's fewer than 50 because our organization's pretty small. We'll increase usage naturally with time, but we're almost close to 100 percent, so it's hard to really increase usage at this point.

I read the documentation, but we haven't had any need for tech support.

We were using Azure DevOps previously, and we switched to GitHub primarily due to cost. The automated build platform is costly on the Azure DevOps side but significantly less expensive on the Azure side.

Setting up GitHub is extremely simple. You create an account in five minutes and have your first repository set up in another two after that. You're up and going in under 10 minutes.

It's a lightweight solution. The only maintenance is usually related to active stuff that we're doing on the platform. I wouldn't classify that as maintenance. That's product improvement.

We are a step above the base package. It's not the enterprise package. We're using the teams or the organization package. It has a few different names.

I rate GitHub nine out of 10 for overall ease of use and completeness in functionality.