AWS CodeCommit Reviews

AWS CodeCommit is a version control system integrated directly in the cloud environment, similar to GitHub, GitLab, and other platforms. It offers every single benefit of using any other version control system.

AWS CodeCommit was used as a version control system in an AWS environment. The IAM integration was utilized to set the correct permissions for users in order to edit the repository, write on the repository, and view the repository. It is a really good product where you can easily create your repository and integrate it with other tools such as IAM to handle the user and management aspects of the repository.

You can easily set branch strategies and define branch rules without much difficulty or errors. You can also limit pushes and merges by setting rules to define who can approve and handle all approval-related tasks. AWS CodeCommit is really integrated with IAM, allowing you to use IAM rules and IAM policies to set specific requirements and policies for groups, including policies for committing, editing code, and viewing code.

Encryption capability was potentially used to store secrets and values that were in use with the pipeline and the code that triggered pipelines, though the specific details of this usage are not entirely certain. AWS CodeCommit is a good product for handling all tasks related to version control systems and managing the branch strategy of your repository. Compared to other tools outside AWS such as GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket, you can customize the policies of your users better with IAM policies in AWS CodeCommit.

AWS CodeCommit is a good product to use when you also have to use CodePipeline because it is all integrated in the same system, which is beneficial. However, the integration with other code pipeline tools outside the AWS world is uncertain, as there has been no experience with that integration.

The number of users for AWS CodeCommit is generally less compared to other version control systems. To improve the adoption of AWS CodeCommit with respect to others that are more used in the market, something would need to be done to increase market share, as people are often more educated to use GitLab or GitHub. AWS CodeCommit is quite easy to learn in general, but competitors have a bigger market share in this particular area for many reasons.

AWS CodeCommit has been used for approximately one year.

AWS CodeCommit is stable.

The scalability of AWS CodeCommit is uncertain due to not having a chance to test it, though it appears to be quite scalable.

Support for AWS CodeCommit has never been reached, so there is no information about customer service.

Positive

No previous solutions were used before AWS CodeCommit.

AWS CodeCommit was not installed through AWS Marketplace. It was already installed and provided as part of the existing infrastructure by the team.

Automated notification within the AWS CodeCommit pipeline or repository was never used. Notifications were not sent to users, as accounts were simply created. Notifications might be used when you do a pull request to notify the other reviewer to review the pull request, or when you have to approve something, to send notification to the approval team. The overall review rating for this product is seven out of ten.

I have worked with AWS CodeCommit at both Huntington and Walgreens, where I managed their cloud infrastructures using core AWS services. We used AWS CodeCommit as our Git repository for banking platforms and banking application microservices code.

I primarily use AWS CodeCommit as our central Git repository for application code and infrastructure as code. For my current client, we organized our repositories by service domain, with one repo for each microservice in our banking platform. This helps us maintain clear ownership boundaries between teams. We heavily use the branch protection features to enforce our development workflow. A practical way we use AWS CodeCommit was to trigger notifications. We configured it to fire Lambda functions when commits happen to certain branches, which then kicked off our CI/CD process. The integration with IAM rules was crucial for us.

What I find best about AWS CodeCommit is its seamless integration with the AWS ecosystem. When we set up our mortgage application pipeline at Huntington, we connected AWS CodeCommit directly to AWS CodeBuild and AWS CodePipeline without any third-party tools or complex configurations. This made troubleshooting much easier since everything was in one place.

The IAM-based access control is also one of my favorite features, as being able to use the same permission model across our entire infrastructure simplified our security posture tremendously. I appreciate the built-in encryption and trigger system. At Walgreens, we used it to automatically run security scans on new code. We set up a Lambda that would trigger on commits to analyze the dependencies for vulnerabilities before the code reached our build process. The tight AWS integration makes it valuable in our environment. The fact that we can use native AWS tools for the entire pipeline makes everything work more smoothly.

The Git interfaces in AWS CodeCommit definitely need work. When we migrated our payment processing system at Huntington, we found the web UI to be basic compared to GitHub and GitLab. Simple things such as viewing directory structures or browsing through commit history and pull request flow could use serious upgrades.

We had to create workarounds for features that come standard elsewhere, such as automatically assigning reviewers based on code ownership and setting up required review templates. The search functionality is another pain point, as trying to find specific code across repositories is limited. At Walgreens, we had a large mono repo for our pharmacy services code, and developers constantly complained about how difficult it was to search through it effectively in AWS CodeCommit. I also wish it had better CI/CD visualization built in.

I have been using AWS CodeCommit for four years now.

We had a few stability hiccups with AWS CodeCommit, though nothing catastrophic. During a major release at Huntington, we experienced strange latency issues where pushes would take 30 to 40 seconds to complete, which created bottlenecks during our morning code merges.

The team was pushing changes to our mortgage calculator feature when suddenly everything slowed to a crawl. We had to stagger our merge times to avoid overwhelming the service. There was also an incident where repository access suddenly dropped for about 15 minutes during the deployment window. We received no warnings and no alerts from AWS, and developers were suddenly unable to pull code.

AWS CodeCommit is actually one of the cost-effective AWS services. It follows a straightforward pricing model where you pay for users and storage. With around 40 to 50 developers, it ranges from $100 to $150 per month. The first five active users are free, and then it costs $1 per additional user per month.

I can definitely recommend AWS CodeCommit, rating it eight out of ten.

I am always upfront about its limitations, but if your team is heavily invested in advanced GitHub actions and extensive marketplace integrations, here is my advice: First, set up solid IAM permissions from day one. Second, don't skip on training as the CLI commands and identification are slightly different from GitHub and GitLab. Third, configure the notification system properly. Finally, consider the AWS integration advantages, as AWS CodeCommit really shines when setting up event-driven pipelines using AWS CodeCommit triggers that build automatically when commits hit specific branches.

The positive impact of AWS CodeCommit on my organization was significant, especially transitioning from Subversion (SVN), which was an outdated technology for repositories. It was a very hectic process to pull or push code in SVN due to too many rules.

Before using AWS CodeCommit, I utilized GitHub and SVN for these use cases.

The most valuable features of AWS CodeCommit include the least privilege access from IAM, where permissions are granted only for the specific repository the developer is working on, which allows for hundreds of repositories with controlled access per project. Additionally, we can connect a domain to the repositories for easier access via a web browser, and the integration with CodePipeline, CodeBuild, and CodeDeploy allows for seamless pulling from the repository, building and deploying products. Furthermore, there are connections to GitHub for those who use external repositories, and notification rules for commits and deployments keep the team informed through emails or Microsoft Teams, making it very helpful for any organization.

The branch management and pull requests structure helped improve collaboration among my team by establishing an organized hierarchy where the tech lead, as the main interactant with developers, has the full admin policy for PR approvals. Developers test in the dev environment and raise a PR which the tech lead can approve if the code is acceptable, merging it into the main or current branch for release. Before going to the main branch, the developer branch has a testing phase where it's vetted by the QA team according to company rules. Once QA approval is received, the tech lead merges the code into the main branch for release, whether it's small, mini, or major.

Understanding AWS CodeCommit was a hectic job for developers at first, while it was easier for the DevOps team. Even with access, they faced questions and difficulties navigating the service, indicating a need for better documentation. It would be beneficial if users knew how to navigate the documentation to get assistance. Furthermore, AWS CodeCommit has been discontinued, so those who created repositories before its discontinuation retain full access, while those who lost access should be assisted by AWS in connecting to GitHub or alternative solutions for easier migration. Although AWS services integrate more seamlessly, connecting third-party tools to AWS CodeCommit can be challenging, emphasizing the need for improved integration processes.

The distinct issue I wanted to improve while working with AWS CodeCommit related to the migration process. Moving from legacy repository services like SVN to AWS should ideally include a reliable migration plan to attract users rather than forcing them to seek other services. The migration was quite hectic initially, taking around two weeks. Easier integration and migration tools would have addressed these challenges and eliminated the issues with AWS CodeCommit.

I have been working with AWS CodeCommit for about one and a half years now.

The decision to switch from previous solutions like SVN and GitHub was made by our DevOps lead. Understanding the issues with SVN, which was old and likely to close, the transition was needed due to the cumbersome process of pushing and pulling code that involved many steps. While SVN required substantial setup and multiple commands to manage a simple task, AWS CodeCommit utilizes cloud technology, making it significantly easier to handle everything from authentication to repository management in a more streamlined fashion.

I have been exploring AWS WAF, VPC subnets, and Lambda lately.

I worked with AWS CodeCommit about six months ago, or maybe more.

The integration of AWS Identity and Access Management and AWS CodeCommit for managing access control was initially quite hard as I had to navigate various groups including developers, QA teams, admin teams, and the main AWS admin controller while also developing with Terraform. Once I established IAM groups, it became viable to manage permissions based on user groups rather than attaching policies to individual users, simplifying access control as users only receive permissions associated with their respective group like dev, QA, or tech leads, which streamlined the organizational structure while also focusing on specific repository access.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate AWS CodeCommit a 9.

I mainly use CodeCommit to commit my code and push it to the repository. Whenever I develop code in the local environment, I use CodeCommit to check in and put the code onto the remote repository and trigger the pipeline.

The solution scalable. I can meet the repository size and traffic requirements without any additional configuration. AWS integrates well with other AWS services, like native integration tools such as CodePipeline, CodeBuild, and CodeDeploy. 

It also works well with CloudWatch for monitoring and CloudTrail for auditing. I can use IAM to enable detailed permission at the repository level. It supports Git tools and their workflows. These are some of the features that are quite useful when using CodeCommit.

There is room for improvement in Insight Analytics. A built-in dashboard with advanced analytics, like commit frequencies and pull request trends, could be added. These features would help gain deeper insights for project management. Integration with third-party tools, such as external DevOps and project management tools, is limited compared to competitors. Integration with popular tools like Jira, Jenkins, and GitHub Actions can be streamlined.

I have used the solution for four years.

There are no stability issues because it's self-managed by Amazon. I haven't found any glitches in the performance stability-wise.

The solution is quite scalable. There are no technical issues or problems concerning scalability.

Quite a few times, I have raised support tickets with Amazon and collaborated with their customer support for technical support to fix issues in our project developments. This could be at the architect level or the infrastructure coding level. 

At various stages, I have collaborated with them. They are quite responsive yet have strict protocols, which involve following up at regular intervals. I don't find any delays on their end.

Positive

It's quite easy to set up. It's not a big deal to configure.

The solution provides a timely response. There isn't much delay in response time.

Lately, it is turning out to be a little expensive. The market is preferring Azure because it offers resources at a much cheaper price. Compared to Azure, AWS is more expensive, and that's the trend.

Quality-wise, it's good. It's at the same level as Azure.

It depends on how the entire project is set up within AWS. I would suggest using cloud-native tools, like CodeCommit, CodePipeline, and CodeDeploy, for better integration and seamless delivery of code into production. 

I would rate the product eight out of ten.

We primarily use AWS CodeCommit as it is the AWS service, making it easy to commit any changes. It helps integrate changes automatically with deployment servers.

AWS CodeCommit facilitates easy integration of code changes with deployment servers, reducing the need for authentication processes.

AWS CodeCommit is highly user-friendly. It doesn't require any complex authentication, which makes the process seamless. Deployments happen in a straightforward manner once the code is organized correctly in the repository. 

The platform allows the creation of private repositories, securing and restricting access to our team members only. This ensures that unauthorized users cannot access sensitive files. AWS CodeCommit also integrates well when we use it with Check Point allowing us to implement information in the criteria we need.

There is room for improvement in how AWS CodeCommit handles mass changes, like Fortran, which is designed to make these alterations in a friendly manner across AWS requirements.

I have been using AWS CodeCommit for four to five months.

I have not encountered any stability issues with AWS CodeCommit up to now.

AWS CodeCommit offers unlimited access for prioritizing deployment without concern for scalability issues.

The support from Amazon is efficient and very helpful. The team is quite good.

Positive

Previously, we used GitHub but switched to AWS CodeCommit due to its seamless integration with AWS services.

We need to learn how to integrate repositories and manage files effectively in AWS CodeCommit.

AWS CodeCommit is relatively cheap.

I definitely recommend AWS CodeCommit due to its robust functionality. 

I rate AWS CodeCommit at eight out of ten.

I use this for pretty much everything. I work with Glue, pipelines, CodeCommit, and CoPipeline. I use Kinesis and Kafka.

Not really that much stands out. I am using CodeCommit since my customer asked me to use it. It is just an appliance, and GitHub and GitLab can do a better job.

There's a very limited aspect to the solution. When I compare code, AWS has a cap on the file size, and that size is pretty small compared to what GitHub and GitLab provide.

I have been using this solution for at least five years, at a minimum.

I see there is not much of an issue except its limitation in terms of reading file size and all that stuff, like doing a difference between two files that are over a certain amount of size.

There is no need to scale up. It is just a repository. AWS essentially has all my source code in there, and I take and deploy.

The customer service is pretty good. They do a good job, however, it is like anything else. Not having full contacts makes it difficult, and there is so much to do.

Neutral

The setup is straightforward.

Implementation involves a team of people, like DevOps-type folks. The process is kind of a handoff. There is AWS code developed by a developer and committed into CodeCommit. Then there is a build process, which is done via the pipeline with the deployment. This is managed by the DevSecOps people.

It is expensive now. When I started, the cost was affordable for many people, like small businesses. Now, I have small businesses moving off the cloud since it is expensive.

GitHub and GitLab can do a better job.

I would rate the solution probably six out of ten. 

I am an architect, developer, and DevOps guy, so I do the work for the client and customers. It is off the cuff right now. It is on the cloud, but CodeCommit, as I mentioned, is now being retired by AWS. 

They do not allow any new customers to use it. They will allow existing ones, but it is a matter of time to migrate to GitHub and GitLab. AWS is going to probably phase it out next year or so. 

We use AWS CodeCommit for existing customers whose workloads are already integrated with it. However, for new customers, we use different version control systems like GitHub, Bitbucket, and GitLab.

AWS CodeCommit provides a reliable version control system, and we continue using it for customers already integrated with the system.

AWS CodeCommit's user interface is nice, and it's easy for people to pick up. There are no issues with security or compliance, and it scales easily.

Although CodeCommit's user interface is good, it can be improved when compared to other version controls like GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket.

We have been using AWS CodeCommit for the same number of years as our other version control systems.

We have not experienced any issues with the stability of AWS CodeCommit.

AWS CodeCommit scales easily, making it convenient to adjust to our needs.

The customer service and support for AWS CodeCommit are excellent.

Positive

We use different version control systems for new customers, such as GitHub, Bitbucket, and GitLab, due to CodeCommit being deprecated for them.

AWS CodeCommit is not difficult to start using, as migration to it is quite easy.

AWS CodeCommit is free, and there are no additional charges for using it.

For new customers, we evaluated and use other version control tools like GitHub, Bitbucket, or GitLab.

I would recommend third-party tools like GitHub, Bitbucket, or GitLab to those considering starting fresh since AWS CodeCommit is deprecated for new customers. 

Overall, I would rate AWS CodeCommit an eight out of ten.

AWS CodeCommit is a version control system, and most of our application codes stay in it.

AWS CodeCommit has the usual version control features, and it integrates with AWS CodeGuru for code reviews. We use that feature extensively.

I have been using AWS CodeCommit for seven to eight years.

I have never had any issues with the solution’s stability.

Since AWS CodeCommit is backed by S3, we never had issues with multiple developers accessing it or with the core size. AWS bills you for it, but it is very competitively priced against all the other competitors.

The solution's initial setup is extremely easy. It usually takes around one or two minutes to set it up.

AWS CodeCommit is worth the money to have as a tool.

AWS CodeCommit is competitively priced against all the other competitors.

As a version control system, AWS CodeCommit has basic branching and allows to have pull requests. It integrates with multiple solutions within AWS. There's a code pipeline that we use for our CI/CD pipelines, and it stays within AWS. It's secure because it stays on S3.

We integrate it with a KMS-based key for encryption. It is over HTTPS, and most of the developers use that. We use AWS extensively for everything, and we use IAM for permissions. Since it's all centralized for us, we don't need to look at multiple tools.

They have encryption at rest and HTTPS-based access. Since we have the credentials in IAM, we enforce our policies from there and decide who has access to what and pull requests. Not everybody can push to the main branch. The solution has those primary things that you would want from security. We do static code analysis using AWS CodeGuru, the service we use for code reviews.

AWS CodeCommit is a typical Git-based version control system. Using it from a developer or sysadmin standpoint needs no new learning curve if you already know Git. You can use the solution if you are already aware of the basics of AWS, such as IAM. AWS documentation is so good that we've never had to contact the technical support team for anything.

I would recommend the solution to other users because it's a fairly easy tool to set up and use. If you are on AWS, it makes sense for you to use it because you get everything in one cloud instead of working with multiple third-party providers.

Overall, I rate the solution nine and a half out of ten.

AWS CodeCommit is used for continuous integration and continuous development. We use the solution to push a code onto the production environment, whether on S3 or EC2. It will create a CI/CD pipeline.

The solution's most valuable feature is versioning. We can put authorization so that a senior employee can validate the code before pushing it to the environment. You can have a testing environment and a production environment. You can push the code to whatever environment you want based on your requirements.

I have been using AWS CodeCommit for four to five years.

We haven’t faced any issues with the solution’s stability.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

The solution can easily scale up or scale down depending on the requirement.

The solution’s technical support is excellent.

The solution’s initial setup is more straightforward than that of Azure.

Anyone can use the solution because AWS's documentation is very nice. Even if you know nothing about AWS CodeCommit, you can follow the documentation.

We wanted something that could be pushed directly to the testing environment first and then to the production environment. I suggested that a CI/CD pipeline with CodeCommit would benefit this case because it can integrate with various development environments.

I would recommend AWS CodeCommit if the requirement is CI/CD. It integrates well with the development environment and makes pushing and regulating the code easy. I will definitely use AWS CodeCommit in CI/CD processes.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for AWS CodeCommit is as a private code repository.

There is no environment to manage, no need for antivirus, and no requirement for any additional security solutions since it is fully managed by AWS. This results in significant cost savings and ensures availability with guaranteed uptime by AWS. Moreover, supporting services are also not required because AWS handles everything.

The most valuable feature of AWS CodeCommit is that it acts as a code repository with code versioning and approval features similar to those found on GitHub.

Migration in and out of CodeCommit should be improved. If someone wants to migrate to CodeCommit or migrate out of it, the process needs to be streamlined. This feature should be added.

I have been working with AWS CodeCommit for about three years.

There are no complaints regarding the stability of CodeCommit. AWS provides a stable environment with shared responsibility for security.

AWS CodeCommit is a highly scalable solution. We have not experienced any bottlenecks, and I would rate the scalability ten out of ten.

Support from AWS is a separate module and depends on the support level signed with AWS. In my experience, the support has met my expectations, and I would rate it a nine out of ten.

Positive

We did not evaluate other tools before using AWS CodeCommit, although I am aware of similar tools like GitHub, GitLab, and others.

Initial setup depends on experience with AWS. I would rate it an eight out of ten as a general observation, however, for me personally, it is a ten out of ten.

AWS CodeCommit is a reasonably priced solution. It charges based on storage used, but specific costs details can be found on AWS's page for CodeCommit. The overall cost savings are substantial because AWS handles all management tasks.

We didn't use or evaluate other tools like GitHub or GitLab before working with CodeCommit.

AWS CodeCommit is definitely a go-to tool for code repository purposes.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.