GitHub Reviews

I use GitHub for version controlling of the code. I have experience using GitHub to upload the source code and manage tasks.

GitHub has improved efficiency by being easy to use for any user, and it offers good documentation that makes it easy to follow the steps.

GitHub provides enough storage for uploading the source code. It makes it easy to push code, and the Git commands are straightforward to use. The documentation is also good, and I appreciate the CI/CD pipelines that we use for web applications to upload the application in development mode and production mode.

When I was new, I faced challenges with Git commands, such as reversing or deleting mistakes. Additionally, merging code from multiple branches can sometimes result in conflicts, which are difficult to resolve.

I have been using GitHub for five years.

I have not faced any issues with the stability of GitHub.

For large-scale projects, there can be issues when multiple employees work on the same project and need to merge code into a single branch, resulting in potential conflicts. However, it's a problem with team understanding, not GitHub itself.

GitHub's support team is really good.

I used GetStream.io earlier, but I have not implemented it in a live application.

I do not know anything about the pricing.

I would recommend GitHub to my colleagues.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

One major disadvantage, which I believe GitHub is and which the tool should work on, is that it does not provide good reporting capabilities from a compliance perspective. If we are using GitHub for 500 users, sometimes the compliance team asks for a certain kind of report on how many users are not active and who left the company, and GitHub does not provide such a granular report. GitHub should improve its reporting capability.

GitHub should work on enhancing its search capability. The tool should add some more features and functionalities.

I have been using GitHub for six to seven years.

Performance-wise, if we have set it up properly, we will not encounter any major performance issues with the tool. It works fine.

My company has an enterprise-level setup, so we have a large user base.

The technical support of the solution is good, and our company has used it for GitHub upgrades. We raised our tickets with the support team. Support-wise, GitHub is good. They respond back on time and give us the exact SOP, which we need to follow when we run into some specific issue where we need their support. Support-wise, they are good. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

Some other teams in my company use GitHub Actions.

The product's initial setup phase is straightforward. It is not very difficult. In our company, we have a setup on the server and on AWS also. We are using the cloud version of GitHub.

The tool's pricing was compatible with our company's needs. As far as other tools are concerned, I think, in terms of price, GitHub is okay compared to other tools.

Before GitHub, we used Perforce and some other products as source code management tools. GitHub is more agile-centric and flexible than other tools. GitHub is better accepted as a source code management tool, and that is the reason we are also using it in our company.

My company started to use GitHub as it is well-integrated with other tools and as it provides better support. Suppose you go into some issue or something like that. GitHub's support structure is better, allowing you to do more hit-and-test on the solutions than other tools. With GitHub as a tool, if you run into some issues, you get a lot of articles over the internet. Support-wise, GitHub is a better tool.

GitHub provides you with code-scanning capabilities. If we are using GitHub for CI/CD, it does provide such capabilities. From the code review point, it provides us with a feature to protect our branches and all that. It provides us the feature to help decide who can push to the repository or how many levels of reviews are required. I think these tools should work more on branching. In the branching area, the tool should provide a bit more flexibility.

My company has a couple of AI-driven projects managed with the tool.

The tool is not difficult to maintain.

GitHub is more development-centric and agile-centric, and it integrates with all our CI/CD tools and other things. The tool helps across the project teams to get things automated, and it helps in the quality review process, so eventually, it helps in quality delivery.

.

If some organization wants to go ahead with GitHub, there are definitely no cons or anything for which you will say that business units or companies would not go ahead with it.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

I mainly use it as a repository for source code. I worked on a project where the tool was also used for the CI/CD pipeline, but I didn't set up the pipelines, so for the whole test case, I just participated in the project.

The solution's most valuable feature is the reverse control system. The tool also helps organize collaboration by allowing users to share a repository with other developers.

Speaking of what can be made better in a solution is a difficult topic to discuss because it is not just technology. The tool could improve in the area of artificial intelligence methods. Recently, I made an error when I recently worked on a project since I was confused with some things, and it took quite some work to get it fixed again. Some kind of support in the area of merging should be considered for improvement. At the moment, any improvements in the aforementioned area would be something that I would appreciate as a user.

Specifically, I want the solution to offer AI-based merging support, as it is the only area where the product has certain shortcomings.

I have been using GitHub for four years.

The stability offered by the product is perfect, especially if I consider the use cases for which the solution is used in my company.

The scalability of the product is very good. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Currently, I am looking for a new project for my company. I know that in one of the last projects in our company, the tool was used by around 20 people. In the whole company, it was certainly used by more than 100 people.

In the past, my company has worked with SVN. I think now the standards are mainly GitHub and GitLab.

I would not be able to say the return on investment from the use of the solutions since there was no basic investment involved in the purchase of the product. The solution was available for free.

There are several licensing models available for the product. The basic licensing model is free, and if you need to have technical support and such things, then it does cost something. You only need to pay extra if you need technical support.

Speaking about a functionality of the product that was helpful, I would say that the product offers the capability of testing pipelines, but I don't exactly know what it did. I just knew that we use the testing pipeline feature in projects. The tool offers continuous testing, continuous development, and continuous deployment options that are useful in big projects.

Speaking about how the solution supported our team's collaboration across different locations, I would say that it helped my company with the fat git repository or code repository and also the repository of APIs.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

GitHub is just one of the standard working tools for collaboration in the area of software development.

The product works well for developing environments by developers. The product was able to streamline some of the development processes in our company and also helped to increase the efficiency of the users, especially when compared to the old systems like Sentinel.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We have more than 100 teams in our organization using GitHub because it is a centralized repository tool. We have many interdependent applications, and GitHub provides a platform where people can share their codes in a particular directory.

GitHub's merging feature is much better than that of other products because merging is done daily. The solution's centralized administration is also very good, allowing you to onboard more than 200 or 1,000 people daily.

The solution's cost is high and should be reduced. Our company has a bundle product. Sometimes, people from outside our organization also need to collaborate with our code, and we need to integrate them as well. This causes problems for us because we also need to buy a subscription for them.

I have been using GitHub for two years.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for stability.

I rate GitHub’s scalability a nine out of ten.

The solution’s technical support is very good.

The solution’s initial setup is easy.

We took help from GitHub's support team to deploy the solution. The initial setup is not very big, but onboarding people takes time. My company has more than 20,000 users. The solution's initial setup takes around one or two days.

We pay a subscription-based yearly licensing fee for the solution. If you buy extra support, you pay an additional cost.

The solution's deployment and maintenance is very straightforward. It does not take many people to deploy the solution. The planning part is very important. If you are planning for a big team, you have to plan very well. Planning the initial architecture is very important, and it can be done by an architecture team of one to five people. GitHub is far better than other products because it has a very good backend team.

Since we use a cloud version, it helps support our team's collaboration across different locations. An organization that has a lot of documentation should utilize GitHub. Otherwise, they will lose their data. GitHub is the main product in any software development organization. AI is only for data, but processing the data from AI needs to be stored somewhere. AI requires collaborating with other tools like GitHub, a repository tool.

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

For GitHub, we host our app there, and the code is secured up there in GitHub. We have multiple projects built there. The code is in the GitHub cloud, and we use it as a storage bucket for our codebase that stores our multiple projects and repositories. We use GitHub Actions to automate workflows; whenever we add a new feature to the project or app, GitHub Actions automates testing, deployment, and checks best code practices.

GitHub makes the process really fast for delivering projects, especially when multiple teams are contributing to a single project. It reduces the hassle by having all contributions in a single repository.

GitHub is easy, secure, and widely documented. We use GitHub Actions and Workflows for performing tests and deploying services quickly. It's a well-documented platform with functionalities that other repo systems lack.

GitHub could automate the setup process more, such as creating YAML files for GitHub Actions. The mobile application could be more useful, providing updates on iPhones or Android phones. There could be enhancements to automate branch deployments and other setups.

Currently, I'm working with GitHub. It's been about six years.

GitHub is super convenient and stable, which contributes to its popularity.

GitHub is scalable; I have worked on solutions with tons of features and thousands of branches in a single repository without any glitches.

I have worked with Bitbucket. Bitbucket is useful for creating private repositories, but GitHub is more convenient and vastly documented. It is more widely used and established as a standard.

The initial setup of GitHub is very straightforward and well documented. Even if someone is new to it, they can easily find guidance from online resources.

I have used Bitbucket as well.

While creating repositories, it's important to read all the documentation, especially when setting permissions or creating tokens. Missteps can create problems.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

We use GitHub for developers' deployments and issue management. We follow a Scrum setup, utilizing boards, story-testing tasks, and epics for effective visualization.

GitHub has been very beneficial in visualizing our planning boards, handling big planning items such as epics, and helping us manage tasks and issues effectively.

The ease of the planning board feature in GitHub is very valuable. It allows us to work with different boards easily and effectively visualize big planning items, such as epics.

The query function in GitHub is a bit stiff. They should introduce a query function similar to Jira's JQL for writing complex, nested queries. It’s difficult to write complex queries in GitHub, introducing or, and, and if functionalities.

I have been working with GitHub for two years.

The overall stability of GitHub is high. I rate it an eight out of ten.

The scalability of GitHub is comparatively low. I would rate it a four out of ten.

We have not reached out for technical support, so I cannot rate the customer service.

We used Jira before moving to GitHub. Our trial license for Jira expired, and they did not support us with a free offer, but GitHub does offer free support.

The initial setup was a bit complex and confusing, especially since I was self-learning. It was challenging to understand where to do all the configurations.

We had skilled people familiar with GitHub who drove the implementation. We had a working environment up and running within three weeks and have been improving it continuously.

We moved to GitHub as it supports us for free. We are a tech-for-good organization.

We evaluated Jira before switching to GitHub.

GitHub's simplicity is valuable, but there are some limitations in fields and configurations that could be improved.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I use it for repositories. We use it for version control and for deployments. We use pipelines in GitHub to deploy projects in Salesforce.

GitHub is much better than similar tools like Bitbucket. It's cheaper, and resolving merge conflicts is much easier.

In complex cases, we have to use the terminal for conflict resolution. If those conflicts could be resolved visually in the editor, that would be much better.

I have been using it 

It is a stable product. I haven't encountered any bugs in the last few months.

It is a scalable product. Every developer in my company uses GitHub, so if my company has 100 developers, then 100 of them are using it.

The initial setup is very easy. 

It's cheaper than Bitbucket. Bitbucket is more expensive in terms of pipelines, which charge based on the time on the Python page in streaming.

I would recommend using it. It eliminates a lot of hassle. For example, suppose you're assigned multiple tasks. You could be working on one task and commit changes to a development branch. If something else becomes a priority, you can switch to that task and commit changes for it. This way, you have backups and can control the versions of your product.

It's beneficial for managing multiple tasks and controlling versions of your product. 

You can commit changes to branches for development, and if something is a priority, you can switch to another task and commit changes for that. 

GitHub provides a backup and allows you to control the versions of your product.

It is easy to learn. I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

You can write the code with AI. But when it comes to implementation, you must upgrade the bits of code that will support this and generate solutions based on that architecture. Then, you need comparable code bits. Therefore, AI can propose how much a specific function can be better optimized. So, AI can help stakeholders reach tasks quicker.

I decided not to use GitHub but developed my tool because I found it more efficient. I'm familiar with my tools, making them easier to use. I like being able to customize them to fit my workflow and the way I think.. Software development is like a personal workshop, and I tailor my version control to match my approach. 

You have to do the crazy things to make real changes. Everything stays the same without them. Having a good backup system is crucial. If something goes wrong, you can roll back to a stable state. This mindset drives me to create tools that align with my thinking. These methods aren't easily accommodated on platforms like GitHub, so I prefer to use my tools. 

The solution is the priority, not the specific tools or methods used. For example, imagine you need a simple solution, like a pizza kiosk locator. You're driving and want to find a pizza place quickly. The solution should focus on delivering this functionality, perhaps using Google Maps integration. The key is prioritizing the solution over the technical components.

The solution should allow you to press a button, see the distance to the nearest pizza place, navigate there easily, and even contact them if needed. Companies have resources and processes. The key lies in leveraging these resources to enhance business processes and stay competitive. The primary focus should always be improving efficiency and competitiveness through better combinations and evolution of these processes.

Despite its age, GitHub still holds value, especially in its older functions. However, to maintain relevance and satisfy existing and new users, GitHub should develop newer functions while preserving its traditional ones. This balance would ensure the community's satisfaction and integrate newer features. It seems they're already aware of this need and are working on it, so it's reasonable to expect gradual improvements over time.

The tool is scalable. 

GitHub has become a standard in software development, with millions of users, solutions, and a vast array of software packages and commits. It's reliable, proven, and fosters a strong social community. However, it's important to recognize that not all development processes fit within the GitHub model. In some cases, like ours, we have a unique setup where certain components, like front end and JavaScript libraries, can be hosted on GitHub, while others, like the database, are better managed internally with our tools.

Many solutions are inherently vendor-specific because they reflect the unique way each company conducts its business. These processes often give companies a competitive edge, and they're closely guarded as proprietary secrets. Exposing these processes to a wider audience could diminish that competitive advantage.

Lufthansa, for instance, relies on around ten thousand applications developed in-house and with partners to run their core business operations. 

Similarly, as a competitor in Formula One racing, Ferrari undoubtedly has closely guarded secrets contributing to its success.

SAP encountered issues with its approach to creating minimal solutions for small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs). While they intended to cater to smaller companies, cutting functions led to a loss of value, making it no longer truly SAP. Similarly, many large companies adopting out-of-the-box SAP solutions found their processes becoming standardized, causing dissatisfaction. Companies wanted their unique processes preserved, not homogenized like competitors'.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. 

The tool helps in collaboration with our team on version control, and we're very happy with it. 

I find the most valuable collaboration between our peers to be a seamless collaboration between our peers. We can connect and change our code, allowing us to be agile in our projects. Since we're talking about DevOps, we're using Jenkins in our pipeline. It helps speed up the process by automating the DevOps workflow.

Since most of our work is done remotely, I think GitHub provides a very good collaboration environment.

We want to incorporate management comments within GitHub, making it more like a product management tool. We haven't done that yet. Another change we're considering is migrating from GitHub to Azure DevOps, especially now that Microsoft has introduced it.

Since we are gradually moving to the cloud, everything should be integrated within this environment. GitHub is mostly for on-premises work, whereas Azure DevOps primarily focuses on cloud development.

The tool needs to improve its stability. 

I have been using the product for five years. 

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten. 

The solution is scalable because it is a cloud solution and always gives you room for everything you want to add. It is quite scalable and doesn't impose any constraints.

My development team has about five people. However, other teams are also using this tool. As far as I know, there are about 20 teams of five to six people each.

I haven't contacted support yet since we can find documentation online. 

We switched to GitHub because it is by Microsoft and has good integration with Azure.

The setup has a smooth learning curve. After some initial familiarity, our team is working smoothly with it, and we don't have any problems. We have a tool for monitoring the training needs of the companies we work with and providing training solutions. Another aspect is recording what our staff does, functioning as a staff management tool. Additionally, we manage records of our trainees and track their development.

The best ROI is that we are well organized and don't waste time on disputes and similar issues. Everything gets managed. 

The tool offers a free program. As you go, you can upgrade from the community version to the professional one. I believe it costs about ten dollars per person, per month.

I encourage others to use the solution because it is a viable tool. It will improve communication within the team, make all processes more agile, and provide a single central source of truth. A central reference point is crucial to avoid confusion, especially if you have multiple web services.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten. Our use of AI involves integrating a copilot within our IDEs, which helps us generate code. Additionally, we use AI strategies to assist in writing reports. We are exploring more AI solutions, and it's still a work in progress, as the technology is quite new. We are finding our path in this area, which is quite challenging.

The product can be used to set up simple pipelines. GitHub is owned by Microsoft and is deployed on Azure. If you work offline with Azure, it is very easy to link to GitHub because Azure's cloud engineering is designed to handle a lot of use cases.

Though I haven't done much research, GitHub lacks in providing more functions like GitLab. GitHub should aim to provide more functionalities.

I have been using GitHub for many years.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

The product is becoming more and more complex if I consider how it was in the past. If you search the tool's menu, sometimes the terms are used by clouds like AWS and Azure. AWS has a set of words and terms, while Azure also has a similar set of words. The meaning of the words in Azure is not as straightforward as it is in AWS. GitHub has a lot of new terms, menus, and functions, which are sometimes not very straightforward to understand.

The product's scalability should be fine since Microsoft mostly supports it, and I believe that it is available on the cloud services offered under Azure.

I tried to use Atlassian's cloud services, but eventually, I chose GitHub, considering its internal integration with Microsoft.

The product has no deployment phase since the tool has an open-source version available on the cloud.

The solution is deployed on the cloud model.

I use the tool's free version.

The product is used in the development workflow because most of the open source software is in GitHub, so sometimes, just a couple of links to other software can be done easily.

GitHub is good for small companies and for personal use. GitLab is more useful for mid-sized and big companies.

I would not recommend the product for large development projects.

I recently learned more about AI. In the cloud, if I develop an application using AI and link it with GitHub, then I can create a web app linked with the solution. With the use of new codes in GitHub, it can trigger the app to be deployed automatically in the cloud. GitHub is useful for Windows-based applications, and it is the best choice because of the internal integration between both the tools.

In terms of the benefits derived from the use of the product, I would say that if you search for some technical or computer problems or issues, I think that 80 percent of them can be associated with GitHub's sample codes. The product is a place where developers can get clear knowledge about codes.

I use the centralized functions of the tool for my personal use.

Considering that the product is used by small companies or organizations where Windows-based products are used, I rate the tool nine out of ten.