GitHub Reviews

GitHub is used to maintain code in a centralized place, which allows multiple teams to work on the same repository. It is also integrated with Jira and other tools like CACD pipelines. GitHub streamlines project collaboration by enabling developers to clone, modify, and push changes into a centralized repo. It supports project collaboration for software development processes.

GitHub aids in distributing work among team members, allowing them to focus on their own tasks without worrying about conflicts. By integrating with Jira, it helps track the progress of tasks and their states, such as development, merge, or deployment. It provides a secure and reliable way to store business code.

The most valuable features of GitHub include its ability to integrate with Jira and multiple CI/CD platforms like Techton, allowing for seamless project management. Additionally, the pull request feature, which controls code insertion into branches by code owners, is highly beneficial.

GitHub could improve in resolving conflicts when multiple developers modify the same line of code. Introducing a feature to manage and resolve conflicts directly within the application rather than on local machines would be beneficial.

I have been using GitHub for four years.

GitHub is stable, as I have never encountered or heard of issues such as application crashes or data loss. Even if server issues occur, GitHub takes responsibility, ensuring stability.

As an intermediate-level user, I find GitHub's scalability to be high, rating it at nine out of ten. Its advanced features allow maintaining multiple projects effectively.

I don't have any experience with technical support for GitHub.

Positive

Previously, I used GitLab, which has its own pipeline features. GitHub was chosen for its maturity, reliability, and global adoption by many organizations for application development.

GitHub is easy to set up, rated ten out of ten. Users just need to set up a username, password, and create an access token. It is user-friendly even with basic knowledge, and the GitHub official page offers simple documentation.

Each individual is responsible for maintaining their repository. GitHub management and maintenance are handled by all project team members collectively.

I have not paid for GitHub as I use the free version for personal projects. Organizations may take separate servers from GitHub based on their needs, yet I am unaware of the pricing details.

Users can trust GitHub as a secure place to store their business code because many large organizations use it. It provides a reliable centralized location for maintaining repositories, and its maturity and research make it a best-in-class option.

I'd rate the solution 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.

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 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 product can be used to set up simple pipelines. GitHub is owned by Microsoft and is deployed on Azure. If you work offline with Azure, it is very easy to link to GitHub because Azure's cloud engineering is designed to handle a lot of use cases.

Though I haven't done much research, GitHub lacks in providing more functions like GitLab. GitHub should aim to provide more functionalities.

I have been using GitHub for many years.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

The product is becoming more and more complex if I consider how it was in the past. If you search the tool's menu, sometimes the terms are used by clouds like AWS and Azure. AWS has a set of words and terms, while Azure also has a similar set of words. The meaning of the words in Azure is not as straightforward as it is in AWS. GitHub has a lot of new terms, menus, and functions, which are sometimes not very straightforward to understand.

The product's scalability should be fine since Microsoft mostly supports it, and I believe that it is available on the cloud services offered under Azure.

I tried to use Atlassian's cloud services, but eventually, I chose GitHub, considering its internal integration with Microsoft.

The product has no deployment phase since the tool has an open-source version available on the cloud.

The solution is deployed on the cloud model.

I use the tool's free version.

The product is used in the development workflow because most of the open source software is in GitHub, so sometimes, just a couple of links to other software can be done easily.

GitHub is good for small companies and for personal use. GitLab is more useful for mid-sized and big companies.

I would not recommend the product for large development projects.

I recently learned more about AI. In the cloud, if I develop an application using AI and link it with GitHub, then I can create a web app linked with the solution. With the use of new codes in GitHub, it can trigger the app to be deployed automatically in the cloud. GitHub is useful for Windows-based applications, and it is the best choice because of the internal integration between both the tools.

In terms of the benefits derived from the use of the product, I would say that if you search for some technical or computer problems or issues, I think that 80 percent of them can be associated with GitHub's sample codes. The product is a place where developers can get clear knowledge about codes.

I use the centralized functions of the tool for my personal use.

Considering that the product is used by small companies or organizations where Windows-based products are used, I rate the tool nine out of ten.

The solution is used by developers to work as a team on a code. 

The control is the most valuable feature as developers can work on a single code. 

The initial setup requires heavy documentation which can be challenging for new developers. 

I have been using GitHub for more than a year. 

The solution is stable and I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

It is a scalable solution. 

Previously, we used IBM but because of the clients' requirements, we decided to move to GitHub. 

The initial setup is mostly straightforward. The deployment takes one hour. 

I would rate the overall solution a ten out of ten.

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.

You can write the code with AI. But when it comes to implementation, you must upgrade the bits of code that will support this and generate solutions based on that architecture. Then, you need comparable code bits. Therefore, AI can propose how much a specific function can be better optimized. So, AI can help stakeholders reach tasks quicker.

I decided not to use GitHub but developed my tool because I found it more efficient. I'm familiar with my tools, making them easier to use. I like being able to customize them to fit my workflow and the way I think.. Software development is like a personal workshop, and I tailor my version control to match my approach. 

You have to do the crazy things to make real changes. Everything stays the same without them. Having a good backup system is crucial. If something goes wrong, you can roll back to a stable state. This mindset drives me to create tools that align with my thinking. These methods aren't easily accommodated on platforms like GitHub, so I prefer to use my tools. 

The solution is the priority, not the specific tools or methods used. For example, imagine you need a simple solution, like a pizza kiosk locator. You're driving and want to find a pizza place quickly. The solution should focus on delivering this functionality, perhaps using Google Maps integration. The key is prioritizing the solution over the technical components.

The solution should allow you to press a button, see the distance to the nearest pizza place, navigate there easily, and even contact them if needed. Companies have resources and processes. The key lies in leveraging these resources to enhance business processes and stay competitive. The primary focus should always be improving efficiency and competitiveness through better combinations and evolution of these processes.

Despite its age, GitHub still holds value, especially in its older functions. However, to maintain relevance and satisfy existing and new users, GitHub should develop newer functions while preserving its traditional ones. This balance would ensure the community's satisfaction and integrate newer features. It seems they're already aware of this need and are working on it, so it's reasonable to expect gradual improvements over time.

The tool is scalable. 

GitHub has become a standard in software development, with millions of users, solutions, and a vast array of software packages and commits. It's reliable, proven, and fosters a strong social community. However, it's important to recognize that not all development processes fit within the GitHub model. In some cases, like ours, we have a unique setup where certain components, like front end and JavaScript libraries, can be hosted on GitHub, while others, like the database, are better managed internally with our tools.

Many solutions are inherently vendor-specific because they reflect the unique way each company conducts its business. These processes often give companies a competitive edge, and they're closely guarded as proprietary secrets. Exposing these processes to a wider audience could diminish that competitive advantage.

Lufthansa, for instance, relies on around ten thousand applications developed in-house and with partners to run their core business operations. 

Similarly, as a competitor in Formula One racing, Ferrari undoubtedly has closely guarded secrets contributing to its success.

SAP encountered issues with its approach to creating minimal solutions for small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs). While they intended to cater to smaller companies, cutting functions led to a loss of value, making it no longer truly SAP. Similarly, many large companies adopting out-of-the-box SAP solutions found their processes becoming standardized, causing dissatisfaction. Companies wanted their unique processes preserved, not homogenized like competitors'.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.