CodeStream vs. Plastic SCM

CodeStream is well suited for all developments where two or more people are developing something and I feel there's rarely any project which is been developed and maintained by a single developer. So in short codestream is suitable for almost every development team: - More than one person is developing the code. - People need to get frequent reviews for efficient development. - Best suitable for the teams where new people are there very often. - Collaborations are part of every day to day activities. - Without raising PR and branch management reviews are been incorporated.

Plastic SCM is well suited for the distributed development environment, where branching and merging can easily be handled. Its a good tool for version controlling, especially for a big team which is contributing to a big project simultaneously. Situation where Plastic SCM is not at all well suited are : If the project is smaller one and need to be handled by couple of people. So in that case setting up Plastic SCM and educating people to work on it is not at all efficient

• Integration
• Easy to use.
• Easy to maintain.

Incentivized

• Version Control
• Organizing Workflow
• Transparency

Incentivized

• UI and navigation between services
• Only support YAML method
• Manual setting of triggers in the pipeline

Incentivized

• Interface
• Documentation
• Learning curve
• Unity integration

Incentivized

When compared to Bitbucket, CodeStream is a luck lustre. Even though the overall features are more with CodeStream like customisation of API and more control of triggers across the designed pipeline, Bitbucket and Visual Studio score better in terms of faster implementation and dedicated and proven support system . Apart from that CodeStream fairs better than AWS CodePipeline in overall features

Incentivized

Plastic has best integration with unity - zero issues, native, straightforward. GitHub feels more stable but for smaller and or indie teams plastic s version control feels much more under control - you click, you feel safe. moreover, there is no need for extra tools such as gitkraken, gitlab, Sourcetree, fork, etc. it is really easy to develop games this way.

Incentivized

• Productivity of the team increased.
• Lowered the chances of mistakes at the time of review.
• No corners left un-observed.
• The development cycle becomes more interactive and hence team enjoys the peer discussions and review process.
• A lot of time is been saved, no need of conventional time taking reviews procedures.

• Easy to use
• Cheap
• Better than git for us
• Artists love it

Incentivized