GitHub Reviews

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.

We use Github to upload projects and share files. Github is used for personal application development and building plugins, Normally, we manipulate GitHub from the native system, so we upload the files to GitHub and get a URL. My company has more than 300 developers, and about half of them use GitHub for application storage and formatting applications.

GitHub is good for collaboration because everyone can access it or we can restrict access to a few users. If I upload a file and share the URL, it's not restricted to a set number of users. Everyone with the link can download the files.

GitHub could add more security features. I am not sure how secure it is. If they provide more security features, then it can be used in more official applications.

I have been using GitHub for the last five years.

I have never tried a large-scale upload on GitHub. I create separate folders for each application. Right now, I have 15 to 20 applications uploaded and haven't faced any limitations or storage issues so far.

It is a free platform we only use internally, not for official purposes.

I rate GitHub nine out of 10. We use it to manage plugins and everything else. Even though it is a coding platform, it's useful for any technology. I would recommend using GitHub as a base for configuration and coding activities. 

Once you upload something on GitHub, you can integrate it with your local repositories or other platforms. It has broad compatibility with other solutions, so you can use GitHub even if you have a different platform. 

We are customers of GitHub.

GitHub provides the SFH key to protect our passwords and our connection, it's a helpful product. It secures our repositories so any attempt to access from outside the company is blocked. We also have control of our product versions in GitHub, which is very useful. I like the fact that you can use it on any device.

The only problem we have is that our firewall was blocking cloning and downloading with SSH.

I've been using this solution for three years.

GitHub is stable. In the three years that I've been working with it, we've had very few problems.

Stability is good, we have around 200 users.

I never use the technical support of GitHub. I believe it's user-friendly but I've never needed to access it.

This is a free solution so there are no licensing costs.

I rate this solution 10 out of 10.

We are using GitHub as a repository for a couple of customers to be able to do Infra as Code in Microsoft Azure for them.

The most valuable features of GitHub are the ease of integration into Microsoft Azure DevOps. The process that you need to deploy into Microsoft Azure becomes fairly simple and the templates are already available, a lot of the engineers find it easier to use.

GitHub could have better integration or capability with other solutions.

I have been using GitHub for approximately four years.

GitHub is highly stable. Our team has not had any trouble with it.

The scalability of GitHub is good. I have not come across any limit.

We have six people using this solution in my organization. We have plans to increase usage.

I have not used the support from GitHub.

The initial setup of GitHub is simple. The full implementation took approximately a few hours. There was some user configuration that took some time.

We did the implementation in-house for GitHub.

 The licensing model from GitHub is very clear.

I recommend this solution to others. There may be some customers that are very picky about not having code on the cloud, and then my recommendation would normally be to use Microsoft Azure Repos, which is essentially a clone of GitHub but it stays within your subscription and within your tenancy on Microsoft Azure.

I rate GitHub a nine out of ten.

We use GitHub instead of our regular shared drive. It offers instant access to shared folders as well as good security.

The GitHub repository needs an upgraded user interface and overall UI improvements. In Automation Anywhere, we have one repository where you can download or upload information. They have two interfaces in a single view that has verification. It would be good if Github offered the same. 

I have been using this solution for five years. 

This solution is somewhat stable, but requires additional supporting products.

This is a scalable solution. We have more than 2,000 users.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. 

We use GitHub whenever there is an infrastructure level deployment on any of the cloud platforms.

This solution is very easy to use which I like about it. The capacity to own artifacts and share them with others is another good feature. You don't have to write all your code from scratch, you can use available templates and alter the code according to your needs.

The initial setup and implementation could be easier, I had some difficulties with it at first but I don't have a development background.

I've been using this solution for around one year. 

The solution is pretty stable and straightforward, but having experience helps.

I found this product to be scalable, we have at least 500 to 600 users within our company. For a small-scale deployment two people are more than sufficient, but that would increase with the complexity of the deployment.

Any issues have been resolved by our own team, but I can say that Microsoft customer support is usually satisfactory.

The initial deployment was straightforward and took three to four months.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use the solution when developing new code or modifying existing code, changes are tracked and other team members can review the code before production. 

The ability to track external changes to repositories we are using has been very useful for us. If we have a piece of code that's being implemented and it makes use of modules that we're calling externally from, let's say NPM, and a defect is found in one of those NPM modules, we're immediately alerted that a defect has been found in libraries outside of our code space. This enables us to keep in touch with defects that other people have discovered in the code that we're using. GitHub informs us as other users discover broken code, which allows us to deal with issues very quickly, without investigation on our part. 

The versioning of the code and the tracking of changes are definitely some of my top features. 

The ability to code reviews with peers.

The automatic checking to make sure that any of the code in my repository is not out of date with any modules that I'm making use of.

The solution could have better support for the Markdown language.

I've been using the solution for over ten years, probably since its beginning. 

The solution is very stable, they have been working on it for over a decade. 

The product is extremely scalable. We've seen applications that are hundreds of thousands of lines of code and it doesn't have any problems working with them.

I'm a contractor for the Department of Veteran Affairs, and we've easily got several thousand people making use of the code just within the VA itself. It's being used by almost everyone on a product development team, including project managers, testers, developers, and documentation specialists.

The support is very good. We make use of Slack for communication and we have dedicated technical support for GitHub right in our Slack, which allows us to get responses within minutes from their technical support team.

The initial setup was very simple.  

It really depends on the application we're working on. I've seen deployments take as little as 15 or 20 minutes to push out a code change, up to hours or days depending on the functions that we're changing.

We implemented the solution via an in-house team. 

Due to the cloud environment, we don't need anyone for maintenance, that's all done by GitHub.

We have an enterprise licensing agreement, and I am not part of the finance department so I can't say how much it costs. 

I would rate GitHub a nine out of ten. 

The implementation is a hybrid public and private cloud. GitHub in some ways is similar to NPM, but it is a code repository primarily for code versioning systems. It's all cloud-based and we just upload our code to it. There are functions within GitHub that will take and monitor the code that's uploaded and any NPM repositories that it makes use of, and confirms that your code is making use of the latest code repositories. Anytime there is a discrepancy or an upgrade to one of the code repositories, it lets you know what that upgrade is.

They're constantly making improvements to the environment, adding new features and functionality. The new features and functions that they're coming out with are available to me sometimes before I realize I even need them.

We use GitHub extensively with any new product we are developing and we're going to keep doing it that way. I would advise anyone to implement this solution. 

We are actually working with MuleSoft, and for that, we have to build our application. We are working for a company offering hotels and resorts. We are using GitHub for that process. We're building applications on it. 

It's good for branching and keeping the code. Overall, it is a good tool. We can find stable branches there and it is very easy to manage code there.

The interface is good.

We have found that it does allow for helpful integrations. 

It is really simple to set up.

They need to make it possible to recover branches. For any of the branch that does not have PR, that is unrecovered. So there should be an option to recover those branches.

I cannot recall coming across any missing features. 

The user interface on GitLab is better.

I've been using the solution for six or seven months. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. The performance is reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have 70 to 80 users on the product currently. We use it on a daily basis.

It's very easy to scale as needed. 

I've never directly contacted technical support. As a developer, I'm not the one who would be contacting technical support. If there were issues, someone else in the company would deal with them. 

I previously worked with GitLab. They are pretty much the same. GitLab does have a very good user interface. That's the main difference.

The initial setup is simple and straightforward. it is not overly complex or difficult. 

As it is a solution that is on the cloud, there is no manual maintenance required. 

We do have a separate team that handles deployment. I don't handle deployments directly myself. 

I don't deal with licensing. I cannot speak to the exact pricing. 

I'm just a customer and an end-user. 

We currently work with the latest updates of the product. 

I'm a developer and I don't work with managing everything on GitHub. I just use it for putting in the code and merging branches.

GitHub actually is a pretty easy tool. It is not very difficult to understand. It is very easy. Everyone can set up branches there or work on it.

I'd rate it eight out of ten. If we could recover branches, I'd give it a perfect ten. 

Because Github is hosted in the cloud, we do not require many resources to maintain it. 

The security for this solution could be tightened up and improved. 

We have used this solution for three years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. 

We have not needed to contact their support team frequently. 

The initial setup was straightforward. 

The licensing offered is on an annual basis. 

During our use of GitHub, we have not encountered any problems and GitHub adds new features frequently. How useful these features are, depends on each business. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We use GitHub because we don't have any paid solutions, and GitHub is freeware. It's open to all, and there aren't big licensing fees, like with Jira or any other tool. Apart from that, because it's totally cloud based, we don't need any extensions, and our developers and DevOps are all in sync and are able to get help with their second branches. So, we are all using the same platform to manage our product.

It's a cloud solution.

It is easily accessible. Even if someone doesn't have the paid version of the GitHub license, the minimum license, they can still use it for themselves. Sometimes Jira extensions are only installed on a server on the client side, so you need a VPN connection to access that, but with GitHub access is based on your ID, so you can access it from anywhere.

While we are working from home because of the pandemic—and when we didn't have proper VPNs—it helped us assess all our defects, which are placed in GitHub very easily. We don't need to rush the VPN connection and then access all these things. It was really easy. It also has two-factor authentication, which helps us authenticate users very easily.

A great feature is being able to have different repositories and different kinds of projects in a single solution at a single time. It's just a click away. If I compare it with Jira, that's one of the best features.

The only thing I see missing in GitHub is that it isn't very user friendly for key personnel who don't have in-depth, technical knowledge. In Jira, there are many functions to upload our test cases, and in GitHub we can only do it manually. There are functions which can be used to upload different files, but that still requires some technical knowledge. A layman cannot do it. Someone has to be trained with all those artifacts.

In the next release, I would like to see more QA friendly features like extensions. In Jira, you can modify different extensions. GitHub doesn't have that. They have many standard features, but sometimes I feel that there is something that I need but it's missing.

I've been using GitHub for more than three years.

GitHub is very stable. I have seen many different sections which are also easily accessible. For developing a product, you don't need to travel or do research work. In GitHub, there are many other repositories that are public. You can also navigate and see what others are doing if they have some public examples. It's like a type of overflow. You get many examples from this, and then by seeing those examples, you can directly implement that work and have a glimpse at other things.

Scaling the solution is very easy. 

In my organization, there are 130 people currently using GitHub. It has been used quite extensively because 130 guys are using it on a daily basis for checking their codes along with user stories.

We haven't needed anyone for maintenance of this solution.

I have previously used Jira. When I was using Jira, I wasn't applying projects, so they were funding the project and using the Jira platform for managing their product. Currently in the project I'm on, we don't have a lot of funds for Jira, so we searched for the open source and found GitHub. We liked it because it was solving all of our queries. Whatever our needs were, we were able to accomplish them with GitHub.

Initial setup was very simple.

There was no implementation strategy because GitHub is cloud based. It doesn't require any sort of deployment from our end. There was just a configuration that we needed to do to make it work with our code. There were simple sections which we needed to run, but our developers were able to collaborate easily.

We worked with our in-house team. There was no mediator between us.

If there are only 10 people using a particular repository, then GitHub is free. But if we increase the number of users, we need to pay the normal charge for GitHub.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10. 

If someone is managing the product as well as doing the test management, they should go with GitHub. It's very easy to understand and track everything, and you can even see the different check-ins. 

If someone is specifically going for a test management tool and they need the proper agile-based tools, they should go for Jira.