GitHub Reviews

We use GitHub to track what kind of libraries you are using.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the version control field. GitHub has a good integration and coding engine.

It would be beneficial if GitHub provided some security scanning for new libraries to ensure that there are no viruses in it. The solution’s stability could be a bit better.

I have been using GitHub for two months.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten for stability.

Around 30 users use the solution regularly in our organization, and we plan to increase the usage.

I have previously used Bitbucket.

The solution's implementation takes a long time.

We pay a licensing fee for GitHub, which could be cheaper.

The solution is deployed on the cloud in our organization. I would recommend the solution to other users. GitHub is a version control, and you can always switch and text because every version is saved.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Our customer has hundreds and thousands of applications, and 12 are part of my current project. Three of those applications are using GitHub as a code repository. The rest use Bitbucket. This customer is an Atlassian shop, so only I don't think more than 50 people use it.

Any code they develop will be version-controlled in this GitHub tool, and they use the branching and merging strategy to promote their code. We use it for version control and parallel development.  

The code in GitHub will be consumed by CI/CD pipeline for the build and deployment. We're using the latest version, which has a feature called GitHub Actions that enables CI/CD within GitHub, but this organization doesn't use GitHub Actions. They prefer Bamboo. 

The most valuable aspects of GitHub are version control and parallel development. I also appreciate the forking part, which allows us to release a specific set of features to the environment. 

Development teams can integrate this tool with their IDEs. GitHub provides command line instructions that should suffice. But customers wonder how to configure their IDE because you have to clone the repo, register the username with a password, and then switch. All those things need to be performed within the IDE. So I don't know whether those things are already available. That would enable the developer to integrate their IDEs with the GitHub repository.

The development team pushes the code into a repository, and the CI/CD pipeline will perform the build. We need open-source libraries to perform the builds. It would be helpful to have the ability to link to open-source libraries like npm libraries. I don't know if GitHub Actions provides this. I would like to see that in GitHub Actions if they don't. 

If you know the language for your build, it would be wonderful if GitHub automatically provided the link to those language-specific libraries so we don't need to search for the library. 

For example, if I'm using Node.js, I should be in a position to link it to the npm libraries associated with that version so my build using the CI pipeline will work well. Then the results in the library must go into an artifact repository. We'll have to depend on JFrog or Sonatype to provide binary repositories. Git has the repository technology, so why not offer a binary repository feature?

GitHub has a static code repository; now, GitHub Actions provides CI/CD. The resulting packages should stay somewhere. I don't know whether they have added this or not because I have not explored the GitHub Actions. They're all public libraries, and the result of the build or CI pipeline is a deployment-ready package. Where will we keep them? That's where we need a binary repository.

In addition to the binary repository, I think they could also include some vulnerability scans to ensure the code we deliver is clean. SonarQube is a static code analysis we use. There are tools coming from Fortify or Veracode that can ensure there is no security vulnerability in the code. It's a complete CA practice-related tenant. It would be wonderful if they could add this functionality.

We've used GitHub since 2013. 

GitHub performs well with the current load. I haven't had issues with the tool. 

We've never had an with the number of projects or developers using this tool. We've consistently had around a thousand developers over the years. The load will increase If a customer adds another 5,000 developers, then we may see some ups and downs in the scalability aspect of this tool, but we are all good with the scalability and stability so far.

I haven't interacted with the support team because things are working well and we've never had issues with the platform. 

We used open-source Git and later used GitLab, which is a flavor of Git. GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, and Azure Repos are all flavors of Git. The underlying version-control functionalities come from Git, but different vendors have their own flavors. I have experience in all four of these, which are Git.

I wasn't involved in the initial installation, but I installed the open-source flavor of Git, which was straightforward. Enabling the AD or LDAP is the most important thing in the enterprise setup. I have not looked into that because the customer enabled it. I never got a chance to integrate LDAP with the access management system within GitHub.

It's a GAT now. We are using the enterprise edition. I don't use open-source any longer. I have no clue because it's all owned by the customer. We are only consultants in the project, right? So we don't have access to those details.

I rate GitHub 10 out of 10. If you are using GitHub, your development team should define the branching strategy. One popular solution is Gitflow. There are different branching strategies available. You can use the main branch loan and a toggling feature development approach where one branch is sufficient. 

However, people with parallel releases need a parallel development strategy, where multiple branches will come into play. You should consider which branching strategies apply to your current industry and development strategy. Pick one of them, learn, and adopt it in your project.

I use GitHub as a code repository, and we use GitHub Actions a lot to trigger our pipelines.

The most valuable features are GitHub Actions for triggering workflows, GitHub Secrets for saving credentials without needing a third-party service, and the UI for identifying errors in the code when we commit.

Regarding improvements, I preferred the tool's earlier pricing model, which limited storage and the number of repositories instead of the number of users, which was more convenient from a customer perspective. I've also experienced issues with GitHub servers being unable to support moving repositories, which caused problems. For basic plans, no support was available to help resolve these issues. I think GitHub should provide more support for smaller businesses to help with these problems.

I have been using the product for six to seven years. 

For stability, I'd give the solution a seven because we faced 500 server timeouts a couple of times under a heavy workload. It's a good product; otherwise, that was just one instance I could think of.

I recommend GitHub for small, medium, and large companies. However, for very large businesses spending a lot of money, there are other options with more functions and features.

I rate the product's scalability a nine out of ten. 

The community support for GitHub is good enough. However, the official support from GitHub itself is not the best.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. The UI is interactive, so I don't see any problems there. It should be fine with any issues. I'm using the cloud-based version of GitHub.

Regarding pricing, I'd rate it eight out of ten. It's decent and not too expensive, and small businesses can also afford it. With AWS taking CodeCommit out of the market, I don't see many competitors for small companies in terms of GitHub.

There are options like GitLab with more functions and features for very large-scale businesses that spend a lot of money.

I'd give GitHub a nine out of ten as a product and would definitely recommend it to other users.

The solution is used by developers to work as a team on a code. 

The control is the most valuable feature as developers can work on a single code. 

The initial setup requires heavy documentation which can be challenging for new developers. 

I have been using GitHub for more than a year. 

The solution is stable and I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

It is a scalable solution. 

Previously, we used IBM but because of the clients' requirements, we decided to move to GitHub. 

The initial setup is mostly straightforward. The deployment takes one hour. 

I would rate the overall solution a ten out of ten.

The solution is used to store code. It is a repository manager for our code. We can also configure it to run our deployment.

It is a good product. The tool doesn’t incur a lot of cost. It is highly stable. We can easily integrate our deployment to achieve continuous integration and continuous delivery.

The product must document the CI/CD process more. It must also expose the APIs for CI/CD.

I have been using the solution since 2016.

I rate the tool’s stability a ten out of ten. It is highly available. I have not encountered any issues.

I rate the tool’s scalability a ten out of ten. I have not encountered any issues with the scalability. I am using the tool for my personal projects. If I needed someone to collaborate, a maximum of five people would have access to the tool. I do not have plans to increase the usage for now.

The solution is cloud-based. I do not have to deploy it.

Our code is secure. We can easily roll back the changes. We can take features to the market a bit faster.

It’s an open-source solution. We do not have to pay for it.

I will recommend the product to others. Overall, I rate the tool a ten out of ten.

I use GitHub to keep and maintain my code and have version control. I connect with GitHub through an application called GitHub Desktop.

GitHub's version control is valuable. A recent example was when I connected a website with GitHub, which I developed in my local environment on my computer. I kept updating the plugins directly from my computer, and then I deployed the code through GitHub, which reflected directly into the live website. GitHub sped up the development process, and I felt safe because if something went wrong, I could always go back to my previous code, so I wasn't worried I would break the whole website. It is good for developers because they have version control over their code.

Moreover, with GitHub, finding other people's code is easy. There are a lot of users who host their code on GitHub and open it to the public. Sometimes, you can learn from their code or just use their solution, so it's very good for the developer community.

GitHub is good for controlling and managing the code without destroying it.

It would be good if there were training materials for junior developers.

I've worked with GitHub for about three years.

GitHub is stable.

GitHub is scalable. It's just me using GitHub for my code. But if you had a bigger project with a team, you could always invite anyone to work with the code. GitHub is good for teams because everybody can start with one main code and then open their branch to code freely without destroying any other code. However, there should be one administrator who performs tests to combine each code.

I use the free version of GitHub.

Many big companies use GitHub, such as WooCommerce for example. There are a few ways to use GitHub, like through Terminal. I personally like to use GitHub Desktop because it makes it easier for the user. I rate GitHub a ten out of ten because it is very useful. I remember a time before GitHub when it was quite painful to be a developer. If I'd write code and then want to make an update, I would have to save everything in version one, then version two, and continue doing so for newer and newer versions. Then I'd end up wondering which one was the latest because it was so confusing. GitHub made it much easier to check my code and review it.

We just use GitHub for the repository in our company.

So we have a central repository. So, we do recommend the need to push and pull everything, and that's how we use it.

The requests, push, pull, merge, and everything else in the solution are its valuable features. Later, people make their changes.

I don't have any comments on the improvement needed in the tool since I'm okay with it. I don't have anything really in mind. It's not like I am picky, and I don't need to be picky unless it's really an overblown, like, there are some bugs or some glitches or something like that in the solution. As of now, everything looks fine.

Scalability is an area with a shortcoming, because of which it has room for improvement.

I have been using GitHub for more than five years. We just use the solution for work in our company.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We plan to increase the usage of the solution. There are a lot of products out there in the market, but I wouldn't say I would recommend it, but if you use it, then it's fine. I don't really compare much as long as that's what is expected from the solution functionality-wise is fulfilled. So, then I am fine with it.

I don't use the solution's customer support.

Regarding the initial setup, I rate it an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

The solution is deployed on a private cloud since it is a corporate thing. We don't go for a public cloud.

The deployment is fast since we just have to run the script, and once it's done, it takes a few minutes.

My company has schedules, and we assign people to do the deployment. So, it's rotational. Let's say I do the deployment this week, and then another person does it next week.

I don't know about the solution's cost. My company purchased it. Before, we used to receive the free version, but then they purchased some of the features.

I am using the solution, and I am fine with it. I would definitely recommend the solution to those planning to use it. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

GitHub is an excellent platform for organizing all sorts of information. I personally found it beneficial for keeping track of my coding projects, and recommendations, and occasionally making commits. By creating branches, I could easily focus on specific areas and even delve into things like creating my website using GitHub pages. Overall, I found these features to be very practical and advantageous.

In my case, I prefer to keep my repositories public, especially for small-scale organizations that don't require a high level of privacy. I find it useful to maintain a public profile because it allows me to showcase my work whenever I'm looking for a new job or updating my profile. By doing so, others can visit my profile, review my details, and verify the accuracy of my work history. This way, I can confidently stand by everything that I have accomplished throughout my career.

The most valuable feature of GitHub is version control and continuous integration.

The solution can improve by adding video guides, official guides, or short courses that cater to beginners who are new to the system. These resources could offer step-by-step guidance on how to use GitHub, including common procedures such as pulling and committing. Currently, many of us have to resort to searching for information on how to do these tasks via Google. An official guide provided by GitHub itself would be a valuable asset to newcomers and would save them time and effort.

There is potential for GitHub to enhance its features to be more like a Jenkins pipeline or CI/CD pipeline. While I currently use GitHub for code integration, I would like to see more emphasis placed on code management and automation. It would be beneficial to have more input on these areas within GitHub.

I have been using GitHub for approximately five years.

The stability could improve.

I rate the stability of GitHub a seven out of ten.

We have approximately 20 software developers using this solution.

I rate the scalability of GitHub a seven out of ten.

The support could improve. I have received online discussion forum support but it could improve.

Neutral

We might be switching to GitLab.

I rate the initial setup of GitHub a seven out of ten.

I am using the free version of the solution. However, there are some costs my organization pays.

My advice would be to take some time to clean up your repository and organize your data, step by step, in order to optimize its performance and make it more user-friendly. It can be challenging to work with applications like this when there is a lack of resources or input. However, by investing time in making your repository more efficient, you can reduce the potential for overwhelm and streamline your workflow.

I rate GitHub a seven out of ten.

Our primary use is for open-source code management and distributed version control. We use the solution to coordinate the work of developers, assisting them in developing and maintaining our source code. We also use the tool for code review purposes using the GitHub repository, where I can comment on or review lines of code for developers to edit and improve performance. They then receive a notification alerting them of the desired update, which the project developer and project lead can approve.

The best feature is the ability to track the history of all code changes, and it's easy to use. Additionally, as it's open source, anyone can use that feature resulting in distributed development. This opens the door to collaboration with different code and developer, feature, and master branches of development.

The solution also features robust security, high speed, and good integrity.

Excellent code management means that, even when developers accidentally delete sections of code, it's easily retrievable. GitHub reduces developer workload and saves them time.

The GUI design is poor, so I exclusively use the CLI, which is much easier to use and understand. It would be great to see the GUI updated to be more user-friendly. 

It isn't possible to run different branches simultaneously, and it would be good to see support for that.

We have been using GitHub for over seven years. 

GitHub is very stable; we can use it throughout the development process.

The solution is highly scalable. We have between 100 and 150 end-users, both developers and testers.

We haven't encountered an issue we couldn't fix ourselves or by using Stack Overflow or Google, so good community support is available.

The initial setup is very straightforward; creating a repository and the paths required for local and other branches is easy.

The deployment time depends on the project size. We follow an agile sprint cycle so we can carry out new deployments every one to two weeks, and they don't take much time at all.

GitHub is an open-source application. It's free to use.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We use GitHub because it's open source and makes code management straightforward; it's simple to track different code versions and change history. It's an easy-to-use, efficient application.

For someone looking to use the solution for the first time, I would say it's straightforward and possible to learn the significant features in a day. Learning to clone projects, push and pull code, and use comments is simple.

We use this product to host the code base for different development teams within our organization and for versioning the codes and integrating with CI/CD tooling. We have a partnership with GitHub and I'm a product manager. 

Using GitHub has been beneficial for us because it was an easy process for users and it has improved efficiency. In contrast to Bitbucket or Azure Repos, moving things over to GitHub was simple.

We like the simplicity of GitHub and that it is free of complications, as opposed to other tools on the market. Its ability to be integrated with third-party softwares such as Azure Pipelines or Jenkins, is great.

The solution lacks sufficient support in terms of professional services that could be provided proactively to customers. The product documentation could be improved. What currently exists on the GitHub website is not complete and not sufficient to help end users with customizations or integrations, tools for code quality, or app security. In the next release, I would love to see something around security as well as some code analysis and open-source vulnerability detection features. It would be helpful if there was a better DevOps offering from GitHub. GitHub Actions is still maturing.

I've been using this solution for two years. 

The solution is stable. 

GitHub is scalable, we have around 120 users. They are mainly software developers and engineering managers. We have three people, DevOps engineers and support engineers, working with GitHub and we're likely to expand usage. 

Our technical support experience has been quite good in terms of response and expertise.

Positive

We previously used Bitbucket and Azure Repos. We switched to GitHub because of its ease of implementation and ease of onboarding new users, as well as its integration with third-party tooling.

The initial setup was straightforward. We are in a regulated industry with a large volume of organizations, and there are additional processes that need to be taken care of. Taking all that into account, the deployment took about 10 days. Implementation of GitHub alone just takes a few hours. We worked with a third-party vendor. 

The product certainly saves us a lot of time and that equals money. We save time in terms of how the code base can be managed and versioned. We have better control over the release of the product, and we have reduced the time that takes. We're getting a good ROI. 

I recommend this solution even though it does not provide the complete suite. There are DevOps services coming in from Microsoft, for example, and you need to go to GitHub Actions separately. Source code management is better on GitHub and I would rate that higher.

Overall, I rate this solution seven out of 10.