GitHub Reviews

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. 

The solution is used to store code. It is a repository manager for our code. We can also configure it to run our deployment.

It is a good product. The tool doesn’t incur a lot of cost. It is highly stable. We can easily integrate our deployment to achieve continuous integration and continuous delivery.

The product must document the CI/CD process more. It must also expose the APIs for CI/CD.

I have been using the solution since 2016.

I rate the tool’s stability a ten out of ten. It is highly available. I have not encountered any issues.

I rate the tool’s scalability a ten out of ten. I have not encountered any issues with the scalability. I am using the tool for my personal projects. If I needed someone to collaborate, a maximum of five people would have access to the tool. I do not have plans to increase the usage for now.

The solution is cloud-based. I do not have to deploy it.

Our code is secure. We can easily roll back the changes. We can take features to the market a bit faster.

It’s an open-source solution. We do not have to pay for it.

I will recommend the product to others. Overall, I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

For GitHub, we host our app there, and the code is secured up there in GitHub. We have multiple projects built there. The code is in the GitHub cloud, and we use it as a storage bucket for our codebase that stores our multiple projects and repositories. We use GitHub Actions to automate workflows; whenever we add a new feature to the project or app, GitHub Actions automates testing, deployment, and checks best code practices.

GitHub makes the process really fast for delivering projects, especially when multiple teams are contributing to a single project. It reduces the hassle by having all contributions in a single repository.

GitHub is easy, secure, and widely documented. We use GitHub Actions and Workflows for performing tests and deploying services quickly. It's a well-documented platform with functionalities that other repo systems lack.

GitHub could automate the setup process more, such as creating YAML files for GitHub Actions. The mobile application could be more useful, providing updates on iPhones or Android phones. There could be enhancements to automate branch deployments and other setups.

Currently, I'm working with GitHub. It's been about six years.

GitHub is super convenient and stable, which contributes to its popularity.

GitHub is scalable; I have worked on solutions with tons of features and thousands of branches in a single repository without any glitches.

I have worked with Bitbucket. Bitbucket is useful for creating private repositories, but GitHub is more convenient and vastly documented. It is more widely used and established as a standard.

The initial setup of GitHub is very straightforward and well documented. Even if someone is new to it, they can easily find guidance from online resources.

I have used Bitbucket as well.

While creating repositories, it's important to read all the documentation, especially when setting permissions or creating tokens. Missteps can create problems.

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.

We use GitHub as a code repository for version control. We store our automation code there and have our own branching strategy. It supports our Continuous Integration and Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) processes by allowing us to implement CI/CD tools effectively.

GitHub has improved the productivity of my team by simplifying code merging and enabling effective branching strategies. It allows for easy collaboration as team members can create separate branches and merge code without issues. Email notifications facilitate the collaboration process, and GitHub's integration into organizational structures supports smooth delivery and coordination.

GitHub features that improve code quality and collaboration include easy code merging, the effectiveness of branching strategy, the ability to retrieve committed code if needed, and the pull request facility for code review. Additionally, it provides Draft Pull Requests for review purposes without needing immediate merging and GitHub Actions for CI/CD implementation.

One area for improvement in GitHub could be integration with other tools, such as test management or project management tools.

I have been using GitHub for approximately eight to ten years.

GitHub is very stable without any current complaints.

I would rate GitHub a nine out of ten for scalability.

GitHub provides technical support, although I haven't had the need to consult them.

Positive

Previously, I used SVN. GitHub is much better than SVN. In some projects, we also use GitLab. Depending on the project, we might use Microsoft Azure DevOps.

The initial setup of GitHub is simple, taking roughly ten to 15 minutes.

The pricing of GitHub is reasonable, with the cost being around seven dollars per user per month for private repositories.

For someone who wants to use GitHub, it is important to know the Git commands and understand terminologies like cloning, pull, push, and pull requests.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We use GitHub to track what kind of libraries you are using.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the version control field. GitHub has a good integration and coding engine.

It would be beneficial if GitHub provided some security scanning for new libraries to ensure that there are no viruses in it. The solution’s stability could be a bit better.

I have been using GitHub for two months.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten for stability.

Around 30 users use the solution regularly in our organization, and we plan to increase the usage.

I have previously used Bitbucket.

The solution's implementation takes a long time.

We pay a licensing fee for GitHub, which could be cheaper.

The solution is deployed on the cloud in our organization. I would recommend the solution to other users. GitHub is a version control, and you can always switch and text because every version is saved.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

One major disadvantage, which I believe GitHub is and which the tool should work on, is that it does not provide good reporting capabilities from a compliance perspective. If we are using GitHub for 500 users, sometimes the compliance team asks for a certain kind of report on how many users are not active and who left the company, and GitHub does not provide such a granular report. GitHub should improve its reporting capability.

GitHub should work on enhancing its search capability. The tool should add some more features and functionalities.

I have been using GitHub for six to seven years.

Performance-wise, if we have set it up properly, we will not encounter any major performance issues with the tool. It works fine.

My company has an enterprise-level setup, so we have a large user base.

The technical support of the solution is good, and our company has used it for GitHub upgrades. We raised our tickets with the support team. Support-wise, GitHub is good. They respond back on time and give us the exact SOP, which we need to follow when we run into some specific issue where we need their support. Support-wise, they are good. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

Some other teams in my company use GitHub Actions.

The product's initial setup phase is straightforward. It is not very difficult. In our company, we have a setup on the server and on AWS also. We are using the cloud version of GitHub.

The tool's pricing was compatible with our company's needs. As far as other tools are concerned, I think, in terms of price, GitHub is okay compared to other tools.

Before GitHub, we used Perforce and some other products as source code management tools. GitHub is more agile-centric and flexible than other tools. GitHub is better accepted as a source code management tool, and that is the reason we are also using it in our company.

My company started to use GitHub as it is well-integrated with other tools and as it provides better support. Suppose you go into some issue or something like that. GitHub's support structure is better, allowing you to do more hit-and-test on the solutions than other tools. With GitHub as a tool, if you run into some issues, you get a lot of articles over the internet. Support-wise, GitHub is a better tool.

GitHub provides you with code-scanning capabilities. If we are using GitHub for CI/CD, it does provide such capabilities. From the code review point, it provides us with a feature to protect our branches and all that. It provides us the feature to help decide who can push to the repository or how many levels of reviews are required. I think these tools should work more on branching. In the branching area, the tool should provide a bit more flexibility.

My company has a couple of AI-driven projects managed with the tool.

The tool is not difficult to maintain.

GitHub is more development-centric and agile-centric, and it integrates with all our CI/CD tools and other things. The tool helps across the project teams to get things automated, and it helps in the quality review process, so eventually, it helps in quality delivery.

.

If some organization wants to go ahead with GitHub, there are definitely no cons or anything for which you will say that business units or companies would not go ahead with it.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

I use GitHub to keep and maintain my code and have version control. I connect with GitHub through an application called GitHub Desktop.

GitHub's version control is valuable. A recent example was when I connected a website with GitHub, which I developed in my local environment on my computer. I kept updating the plugins directly from my computer, and then I deployed the code through GitHub, which reflected directly into the live website. GitHub sped up the development process, and I felt safe because if something went wrong, I could always go back to my previous code, so I wasn't worried I would break the whole website. It is good for developers because they have version control over their code.

Moreover, with GitHub, finding other people's code is easy. There are a lot of users who host their code on GitHub and open it to the public. Sometimes, you can learn from their code or just use their solution, so it's very good for the developer community.

GitHub is good for controlling and managing the code without destroying it.

It would be good if there were training materials for junior developers.

I've worked with GitHub for about three years.

GitHub is stable.

GitHub is scalable. It's just me using GitHub for my code. But if you had a bigger project with a team, you could always invite anyone to work with the code. GitHub is good for teams because everybody can start with one main code and then open their branch to code freely without destroying any other code. However, there should be one administrator who performs tests to combine each code.

I use the free version of GitHub.

Many big companies use GitHub, such as WooCommerce for example. There are a few ways to use GitHub, like through Terminal. I personally like to use GitHub Desktop because it makes it easier for the user. I rate GitHub a ten out of ten because it is very useful. I remember a time before GitHub when it was quite painful to be a developer. If I'd write code and then want to make an update, I would have to save everything in version one, then version two, and continue doing so for newer and newer versions. Then I'd end up wondering which one was the latest because it was so confusing. GitHub made it much easier to check my code and review it.