Git vs. Jira Service Management

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

I think using a ticketing system is very easy to use and allows multiple teams to create help desks in the same portal. In terms of internal usage, I think this is a great option. However, suppose you're trying to keep internal items and external helpdesks in the same instance. In that case, this is not ideal, as there is no effective way to separate the two instances to protect internal data better.

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

• Integration with many of the most common tools companies are using (Slack, MS Teams, Salesforce, ... etc)
• Natural workflow with Jira (as product development / project management tool) which makes the full fix and follow up of the tickets / issues very easy to follow
• Allow multiple different entry points and work flows for as many different needs your teams / company have

• 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

• Navigating through issues outside of a kan ban board can be confusing and task heavy.
• It's easy to clutter up the tool. It could use some easy clean up capabilities.
• User interface is decent, but could use work to make it more intuitive.

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

In the current contect the requirments is around having a tool that is focused and can handle large ticket volumes and tracking incident, problem and user requests concerning end users. Jira has built in functionality to address the above practice needs faily easily and has a substantial amount of customizable reports for generating the relevant intelligence.

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

If you're used to other tools in the Atlassian ecosystem, you'll feel right at home with JSM. It's also a platform that technical folk can easily pick up. However, I wouldn't recommend using JSM as a company's first jumping off point into Atlassian. There are a lot of other 'newer' tools that provide sleeker ITSM systems at a similar cost.

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

I gave JIRA a 9 rating since for me JIRA works according to its purpose. Since there is a customer portal, our clients can leave a comment or communicate with us using the PR ticket that way it is easier for us to also request any additional information we need for our investigation.

It's easy to set up and get going.

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

Zendesk is a similar ticketing system that our organization used before JIRA Service Desk. The main drawback of Zendesk was that it can only be used as a cloud service. This means that our company data would be living on the internet at the hands of their security team. Another drawback of this is the price is significantly more expensive rather than hosting it yourself. Zendesk does have some additional features such as commenting on multiple tickets at once that JSD does lack. However, switching to JSD was significantly more cost effective because we have the ability and the infrastructure to host our own ticketing system, something that Zendesk could not provide. Ultimatley switching to JSD saved us money and allows the ability for integration with all of the other Atlassian Suite products that we use on a day to day basis.

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

• It is definitely cheaper than Salesforce
• It allows the IT service desk to be more organized and respond more quickly to tickets, which can save time for both agent and requester.
• Some things are "not quite there" developmentally, so this means that internal IT will need to spend more time developing and testing the product.

Incentivized