GitHub Reviews

We use GitHub for developers' deployments and issue management. We follow a Scrum setup, utilizing boards, story-testing tasks, and epics for effective visualization.

GitHub has been very beneficial in visualizing our planning boards, handling big planning items such as epics, and helping us manage tasks and issues effectively.

The ease of the planning board feature in GitHub is very valuable. It allows us to work with different boards easily and effectively visualize big planning items, such as epics.

The query function in GitHub is a bit stiff. They should introduce a query function similar to Jira's JQL for writing complex, nested queries. It’s difficult to write complex queries in GitHub, introducing or, and, and if functionalities.

I have been working with GitHub for two years.

The overall stability of GitHub is high. I rate it an eight out of ten.

The scalability of GitHub is comparatively low. I would rate it a four out of ten.

We have not reached out for technical support, so I cannot rate the customer service.

We used Jira before moving to GitHub. Our trial license for Jira expired, and they did not support us with a free offer, but GitHub does offer free support.

The initial setup was a bit complex and confusing, especially since I was self-learning. It was challenging to understand where to do all the configurations.

We had skilled people familiar with GitHub who drove the implementation. We had a working environment up and running within three weeks and have been improving it continuously.

We moved to GitHub as it supports us for free. We are a tech-for-good organization.

We evaluated Jira before switching to GitHub.

GitHub's simplicity is valuable, but there are some limitations in fields and configurations that could be improved.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

GitHub is an excellent platform for organizing all sorts of information. I personally found it beneficial for keeping track of my coding projects, and recommendations, and occasionally making commits. By creating branches, I could easily focus on specific areas and even delve into things like creating my website using GitHub pages. Overall, I found these features to be very practical and advantageous.

In my case, I prefer to keep my repositories public, especially for small-scale organizations that don't require a high level of privacy. I find it useful to maintain a public profile because it allows me to showcase my work whenever I'm looking for a new job or updating my profile. By doing so, others can visit my profile, review my details, and verify the accuracy of my work history. This way, I can confidently stand by everything that I have accomplished throughout my career.

The most valuable feature of GitHub is version control and continuous integration.

The solution can improve by adding video guides, official guides, or short courses that cater to beginners who are new to the system. These resources could offer step-by-step guidance on how to use GitHub, including common procedures such as pulling and committing. Currently, many of us have to resort to searching for information on how to do these tasks via Google. An official guide provided by GitHub itself would be a valuable asset to newcomers and would save them time and effort.

There is potential for GitHub to enhance its features to be more like a Jenkins pipeline or CI/CD pipeline. While I currently use GitHub for code integration, I would like to see more emphasis placed on code management and automation. It would be beneficial to have more input on these areas within GitHub.

I have been using GitHub for approximately five years.

The stability could improve.

I rate the stability of GitHub a seven out of ten.

We have approximately 20 software developers using this solution.

I rate the scalability of GitHub a seven out of ten.

The support could improve. I have received online discussion forum support but it could improve.

Neutral

We might be switching to GitLab.

I rate the initial setup of GitHub a seven out of ten.

I am using the free version of the solution. However, there are some costs my organization pays.

My advice would be to take some time to clean up your repository and organize your data, step by step, in order to optimize its performance and make it more user-friendly. It can be challenging to work with applications like this when there is a lack of resources or input. However, by investing time in making your repository more efficient, you can reduce the potential for overwhelm and streamline your workflow.

I rate GitHub a seven out of ten.

I use GitHub for development, including version control and container services.

With GitHub, we can manage our development progress, CID, and continuous integration. It helps streamline our development processes effectively.

I really like the functions that GitHub offers. The features are very helpful for my needs.

There could be some improvements related to the automation of certain processes, especially with the integration of artificial intelligence. This would make some tasks more efficient.

I have been working with GitHub for more than one year.

I would rate the stability of GitHub as nine out of ten. It is very stable for our needs.

For scalability, I would rate GitHub nine out of ten. It scales well with our requirements.

The setup process for GitHub was straightforward and not complex.

If you are a start-up or a small company with a few projects, GitHub could be expensive because of the management costs.

I use GitHub as a code repository, and we use GitHub Actions a lot to trigger our pipelines.

The most valuable features are GitHub Actions for triggering workflows, GitHub Secrets for saving credentials without needing a third-party service, and the UI for identifying errors in the code when we commit.

Regarding improvements, I preferred the tool's earlier pricing model, which limited storage and the number of repositories instead of the number of users, which was more convenient from a customer perspective. I've also experienced issues with GitHub servers being unable to support moving repositories, which caused problems. For basic plans, no support was available to help resolve these issues. I think GitHub should provide more support for smaller businesses to help with these problems.

I have been using the product for six to seven years. 

For stability, I'd give the solution a seven because we faced 500 server timeouts a couple of times under a heavy workload. It's a good product; otherwise, that was just one instance I could think of.

I recommend GitHub for small, medium, and large companies. However, for very large businesses spending a lot of money, there are other options with more functions and features.

I rate the product's scalability a nine out of ten. 

The community support for GitHub is good enough. However, the official support from GitHub itself is not the best.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. The UI is interactive, so I don't see any problems there. It should be fine with any issues. I'm using the cloud-based version of GitHub.

Regarding pricing, I'd rate it eight out of ten. It's decent and not too expensive, and small businesses can also afford it. With AWS taking CodeCommit out of the market, I don't see many competitors for small companies in terms of GitHub.

There are options like GitLab with more functions and features for very large-scale businesses that spend a lot of money.

I'd give GitHub a nine out of ten as a product and would definitely recommend it to other users.

Our primary use is for open-source code management and distributed version control. We use the solution to coordinate the work of developers, assisting them in developing and maintaining our source code. We also use the tool for code review purposes using the GitHub repository, where I can comment on or review lines of code for developers to edit and improve performance. They then receive a notification alerting them of the desired update, which the project developer and project lead can approve.

The best feature is the ability to track the history of all code changes, and it's easy to use. Additionally, as it's open source, anyone can use that feature resulting in distributed development. This opens the door to collaboration with different code and developer, feature, and master branches of development.

The solution also features robust security, high speed, and good integrity.

Excellent code management means that, even when developers accidentally delete sections of code, it's easily retrievable. GitHub reduces developer workload and saves them time.

The GUI design is poor, so I exclusively use the CLI, which is much easier to use and understand. It would be great to see the GUI updated to be more user-friendly. 

It isn't possible to run different branches simultaneously, and it would be good to see support for that.

We have been using GitHub for over seven years. 

GitHub is very stable; we can use it throughout the development process.

The solution is highly scalable. We have between 100 and 150 end-users, both developers and testers.

We haven't encountered an issue we couldn't fix ourselves or by using Stack Overflow or Google, so good community support is available.

The initial setup is very straightforward; creating a repository and the paths required for local and other branches is easy.

The deployment time depends on the project size. We follow an agile sprint cycle so we can carry out new deployments every one to two weeks, and they don't take much time at all.

GitHub is an open-source application. It's free to use.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We use GitHub because it's open source and makes code management straightforward; it's simple to track different code versions and change history. It's an easy-to-use, efficient application.

For someone looking to use the solution for the first time, I would say it's straightforward and possible to learn the significant features in a day. Learning to clone projects, push and pull code, and use comments is simple.

We are using GitHub as a repository for a couple of customers to be able to do Infra as Code in Microsoft Azure for them.

The most valuable features of GitHub are the ease of integration into Microsoft Azure DevOps. The process that you need to deploy into Microsoft Azure becomes fairly simple and the templates are already available, a lot of the engineers find it easier to use.

GitHub could have better integration or capability with other solutions.

I have been using GitHub for approximately four years.

GitHub is highly stable. Our team has not had any trouble with it.

The scalability of GitHub is good. I have not come across any limit.

We have six people using this solution in my organization. We have plans to increase usage.

I have not used the support from GitHub.

The initial setup of GitHub is simple. The full implementation took approximately a few hours. There was some user configuration that took some time.

We did the implementation in-house for GitHub.

 The licensing model from GitHub is very clear.

I recommend this solution to others. There may be some customers that are very picky about not having code on the cloud, and then my recommendation would normally be to use Microsoft Azure Repos, which is essentially a clone of GitHub but it stays within your subscription and within your tenancy on Microsoft Azure.

I rate GitHub a nine out of ten.

Currently, the solution is our source control system. We manage the DevOps pipeline for the company and it's the version control backbone.

I'm curious as to what DevOps Tools can be integrated into GitHub to get it to be on part with the capabilities that come out of the box in GitLab, or whether we should just switch to GitLab to get all of those capabilities.

The stability is quite good.

The scalability is excellent.

We've found the technical support to be very helpful.

Overall, it's a very good product.

If it had all of the end-to-end integration, then we probably wouldn't have any doubts about what we have installed. However, at this point, we're still trying to figure out how to use it end-to-end. 

The new version is supposed to make GitHub actions available to us within the on-prem instance. We're waiting for that, just to see how that plays out with the rest of the source control features and to see if that gives us some semblance of similar capability to what GitLab supposedly provides.

I don't know if there are any plans to do a better integration with the front-end type of tooling. I would like to see it evolve to a full-blown DevOps stacks hopefully similar to GitLab at some point.

We've found the way licensing is set up to be very challenging.  Also, the LDAP sync capability falls over frequently due to the complexity of our LDAP domains.  This requires us to perform manual LDAP syncs almost on a daily basis

I'm new to the company. That said, I would guess that the company has probably been using the product for about three to four years at this point. It's been a while. I've used it within the last year and I'm continuing to use it regularly.

As far as stability goes, it's been good. We haven't really had a lot of major issues yet. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

It's obviously very scalable. We have thousands of users on it and there are no concerns.

We have a monthly call with the technical sales folks. They look after our every need and they're very technically knowledgeable as well. If we go through support, usually issues are resolved fairly quickly. There are no complaints there. We're very satisfied with the level of support on offer.

I just manage the team. I've not involved in the more technical details. I wasn't present for the implementation process. I can't speak to how easy it was, or how difficult, via any first-hand knowledge. 

The licensing model that they have is annoying. One of the things that we struggle all the time with is people that have left the team or the group. We have lots of application teams that are using GitHub. People are moving constantly between organizations, they're moving to different teams, they're moving out of development. 

There's really not an easy way to track who's still using licenses. If they've vacated the position unless somebody goes back into the active directory and actually removes them from the group, they're still holding onto a seat and we're still trying to figure out, how to manage this so that their seat automatically gets reclaimed when people are moving around and it's not a very straightforward process. It takes a lot of effort on our part to try and keep the inventory seats available and managed properly.

We aren't partners. We are simply customers and end-users.

We are still on the previous version. We are still waiting for more stability from the latest version before we update everything.

It's a great product. That said, it needs some work still to be able to do everything that GitLab can do, for example. I'm not sure what the future plans are for GitHub. I know they're working on adding a lot of capabilities now that they're part of Microsoft. They're probably going to make it a much more robust solution - not just a version control system. My perspective is as an enterprise on-prem user. I don't know from an open-source community standpoint, how they feel about the changes. I'm sure most of the users are pretty happy with it as a hosting platform. However, my need is specific to my organizational uses.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

Mainly, I implement my automation test or automation scripts on GitHub, and I try to set it up and push it. Whenever the dev team pushes or makes any deployment, I look for it in GitHub to verify everything is there. Then, I test those features that they deployed.

I appreciate saving from Visual Studio Code that implements changes directly on GitHub. It's nice. When you push changes, they are there. For branching, it works well, especially in an agile environment. I like how I can create different builds from different branches, which helps me as a QA to test certain features separately from the main application.

One thing GitHub could do is probably the same thing as what Sourcetree does. When solving merge conflicts, it would be helpful to have tooltips within the actions to know what changes could happen next when resolving a conflict. It would be nice to have a preview so you are not surprised by what happens after trying to resolve conflicts.

I would say I have been using it for about a year now.

I would give stability an eight out of ten. I am happy about it.

I'd give scalability an eight out of ten.

Some forums help you get answers faster since you just type in your concern and see resolutions from other engineers. However, professional help from GitHub would be nice to have. I'd like a quick customer support option.

Positive

I've only tried Sourcetree and Bitbucket before. There's not much difference. So far, it's mainly GitHub for me.

The initial setup is simple enough.

The pricing is average. In the middle.

I've tried Bitbucket and Sourcetree.

I can recommend GitHub for sure.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.