Digital.ai Release vs. Git

Mainly used in release management where all deployments are well managed and processed further based on the approval system. Complete enterprise-level solution with minor difficulties which need to be added to product improvement features. Integration with other CI-CD tools makes it easier to perform tasks in terms of release and deployments.

Incentivized

GIT is good to be used for faster and high availability operations during code release cycle. Git provides a complete replica of the repository on the developer's local system which is why every developer will have complete repository available for quick access on his system and they can merge the specific branches that they have worked on back to the centralized repository. The limitations with GIT are seen when checking in large files.

Incentivized

• Cross-team release workflow control using email, texts, scripts allow our release management to be truly a 360 process.
• XL Release allowing our Jenkins toolchain to control the beginning of release trains which is very powerful.
• XL release allows us to expose the business process flow for anyone to read direct at the source which runs the process instead of a separate vision.

Incentivized

• Ability to create branches off current releases to modify code that can be tested in a separate environment.
• Each developer had their own local copy of branches so it minimizes mistakes being made.
• Has a user-friendly UI called Git Gui that users can use if they do not like using the command line.
• Conflicts are displayed nicely so that developers can resolve with ease.

Incentivized

• Pagination of data - across tool.
• User Roles Management API can be improved.
• Case insensitive ID's are treated differently making user face login and access issues.
• Dependency on Universal template/custom plugins creation should be reduced.
• Code versioning of templates is very difficult.
• Better error handling.
• Futures Timeout Issues.

Incentivized

• There can be quite a number of commands once you get to the advanced features and functionality of Git. Takes time to master.
• Doesn't handle static assets (ie: videos, images, etc.) well. Although in the recent years, new functionality has been introduced to address this.
• Many different GUIs, many people (including myself) opt to just use the command-line.

Incentivized

Git has met all standards for a source control tool and even exceeded those standards. Git is so integrated with our work that I can't imagine a day without it.

Incentivized

The tool is easy to use, easy to navigate and learn. Manages releases with proper approvals in a systematic manner. Though it needs minor improvements in terms of pagination (data loading), access management, but, overall the tool helps in increasing productivity and less time for production deployments.

Incentivized

Git is easy to use most of the time. You mostly use a few commands like commiting, fetch/pull, and push which will get you by for most of time.

Incentivized

Support is not good at all. To this day, I have to mail my queries and their support site does not log in for me (me alone). But, upon contacting many times, no one helps with a proper response. Though good thing is, I get a proper response over mail too. But, being informative about the tool and not on the issues faced by users outside of the process to get support should also be addressed equally. Which is currently missing in support.

Incentivized

I am not sure what the official Git support channels are like as I have never needed to use any official support. Because Git is so popular among all developers now, it is pretty easy to find the answer to almost any Git question with a quick Google search. I've never had trouble finding what I'm looking for.

Incentivized

It's easy to set up and get going.

Incentivized

XL release is simpler to configure and deploy to the organization than other change management platforms I have used. That simplicity has minor drawbacks requiring you to fit into a limited set of control methods but that exercise helped us simplify a needlessly onerous process.

Incentivized

I've used both Apache Subversion & Git over the years and have maintained my allegiance to Git. Git is not objectively better than Subversion. It's different.
The key difference is that it is decentralized. With Subversion, you have a problem here: The SVN Repository may be in a location you can't reach (behind a VPN, intranet - etc), you cannot commit. If you want to make a copy of your code, you have to literally copy/paste it. With Git, you do not have this problem. Your local copy is a repository, and you can commit to it and get all benefits of source control. When you regain connectivity to the main repository, you can commit against it. Another thing for consideration is that Git tracks content rather than files. Branches are lightweight and merging is easy, and I mean really easy.
It's distributed, basically every repository is a branch. It's much easier to develop concurrently and collaboratively than with Subversion, in my opinion. It also makes offline development possible. It doesn't impose any workflow, as seen on the above linked website, there are many workflows possible with Git. A Subversion-style workflow is easily mimicked.

Incentivized

• XL release has improved our consistency of release process, removing multiple days worth of manual status checking and coordination.
• XL release has allowed us to increase the number of beta releases we can support due to simplifying our release actions.

Incentivized

• Git has saved our organization countless hours having to manually trace code to a breaking change or manage conflicting changes. It has no equal when it comes to scalability or manageability.
• Git has allowed our engineering team to build code reviews into its workflow by preventing a developer from approving or merging in their own code; instead, all proposed changes are reviewed by another engineer to assess the impact of the code and whether or not it should be merged in first. This greatly reduces the likelihood of breaking changes getting into production.
• Git has at times created some confusion among developers about what to do if they accidentally commit a change they decide later they want to roll back. There are multiple ways to address this problem and the best available option may not be obvious in all cases.

Incentivized