Assembla vs. AWS CodeCommit vs. GitHub

Assembla works well when you are working with multiple groups or entities. We dealt with different time zones, different levels of involvement with the projects, etc so this allows for us to have responses back in a quicker fashion. It also helps us clue in the appropriate people and rely less on following multiple email chains

Incentivized

Non-cloud users often complain about CodeCommit because it is so barebones, which it is. However, I believe that is by design. It is not supposed to be a full-fledged AI integrated GitLab alternative. Once users or developers get over the learning curve and required Cloud dependency, CodeCommit is a great service that offers a perfect complement / augmentation to on prem options. It is ideal for Cloud-native deployments where the code and production service are close together.

GitHub is an easy to go tool when it comes to Version Controlling, CI/CD workflows, Integration with third party softwares. It's effective for any level of CI/CD implementation you would like to. Also the the cost of product is also very competitive and affordable. As of now GitHub lacks capabilities when it comes to detailed project management in comparison to tools like Jira, but overall its value for money.

Incentivized

• Assembla assists in the workload balancing of our programmers.
• We are able to use Assembla to manage sprints and sprint planning in our agile format.

Incentivized

• Lightweight
• Native IAM integration
• Collaboration
• High Availability

• Version control: GitHub provides a powerful and flexible Git-based version control system that allows teams to track changes to their code over time, collaborate on code with others, and maintain a history of their work.
• Code review: GitHub's pull request system enables teams to review code changes, discuss suggestions and merge changes in a central location. This makes it easier to catch bugs and ensure that code quality remains high.
• Collaboration: GitHub provides a variety of collaboration tools to help teams work together effectively, including issue tracking, project management, and wikis.

• The ability to export the tasks or run metrics on them.
• Mobile ability.

Incentivized

• Integration with non-Cloud services
• Learning curve for devs
• Barebones

• Not an easy tool for beginners. Prior command-line experience is expected to get started with GitHub efficiently.
• Unlike other source control platforms GitHub is a little confusing. With no proper GUI tool its hard to understand the source code version/history.
• Working with larger files can be tricky. For file sizes above 100MB, GitHub expects the developer to use different commands (lfs).
• While using the web version of GitHub, it has some restrictions on the number of files that can be uploaded at once. Recommended action is to use the command-line utility to add and push files into the repository.

GitHub's ease of use and continued investment into the Developer Experience have made it the de facto tool for our engineers to manage software changes. With new features that continue to come out, we have been able to consolidate several other SaaS solutions and reduce the number of tools required for each engineer to perform their job responsibilities.

GitHub is a clean and modern interface. The underlying integrations make it smooth to couple tasks, projects, pull requests and other business functions together. The insights and reporting is really strong and is getting better with every release. GitHub's PR tooling is strong for being web based, i do believe a better code editor would rival having to pull merge conflicts into local IDE.

Incentivized

There are a ton of resources and tutorials for GitHub online. The sheer number of people who use GitHub ensures that someone has the exact answer you are looking for. The docs on GitHub itself are very thorough as well. You will often find an official doc along with the hundreds of independent tutorials that answers your question, which is unusual for most online services.

Incentivized

We selected Assembla because the ticket functionality worked well with our agile planning format that we use company wide.

Incentivized

CodeCommit is a cloud native solution where GitHub is typically run on prem which requires a team to manage the physical servers and the software on top of it. CodeCommit is a better choice when doing Cloud focused workloads. GitHub Copilot offers more features than the leaner CodeCommit, however does not have the same integration options

While I don't have very much experience with these 2 solutions, they're two of the most popular alternatives to GitHub. Bitbucket is from Atlassian, which may make sense for a team that is already using other Atlassian tools like Jira, Confluence, and Trello, as their integration will likely be much tighter. Gitlab on the other hand has a reputation as a very capable GitHub replacement with some features that are not available on GitHub like firewall tools.

Incentivized

• We were able to spend less time tracking down the status of projects.
• We could become more self-sufficient on reviewing prior resolutions to help with current problems.
• Tasks were responded to quickly because we did not have to email one person, wait for an out of office email and then try someone else. Our task got assigned to the next available person.

Incentivized

• 20% reduction in traffic to on-prem GitHub
• No additional server capacity required
• No overhead or maintainance

• Team collaboration significantly improved as everything is clearly logged and maintained.
• Maintaining a good overview of items will be delivered wrt the roadmap for example.
• Knowledge management and tracking. Over time a lot of tickets, issues and comments are logged. GitHub is a great asset to go back and review why x was y.

Incentivized