Apache Subversion and GitHub are competitors in the version control system category. GitHub appears to have the upper hand due to its extensive feature set, which enhances collaboration and workflow automation.
Features: Apache Subversion is favored for its robust versioning system and precise access control, which suits organizations with strict versioning requirements. It centralizes code repositories, ensuring code availability despite individual system failures. GitHub's features focus on collaboration, offering pull requests, integrated issue tracking, continuous integration support, and extensive security measures. Its code sharing capabilities and cloud-based platform facilitate remote work and team collaboration effectively.
Room for Improvement: Apache Subversion could enhance its collaboration features and integrate more seamlessly with external development tools. It relies heavily on community support, which may not suffice for all users. Additionally, modernization of its interface could improve user experience. GitHub can improve by expanding integrations with DevOps tools and offering more comprehensive out-of-the-box capabilities. Its robust feature set might initially overwhelm new users, thus simplifying initial setup would be beneficial. Enhanced offline support could also address connectivity concerns more efficiently.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Apache Subversion often requires on-premises installations, involving a dedicated team for maintenance, which might not be ideal for all organizations. In contrast, GitHub provides a cloud-based service, simplifying deployment and minimizing infrastructure needs. GitHub is recognized for its comprehensive online support resources that make resolving issues more efficient compared to Apache Subversion’s community-reliant support model.
Pricing and ROI: Apache Subversion attracts customers seeking a cost-effective solution due to its open-source nature, though long-term maintenance might lead to higher total costs. GitHub's subscription fee reflects its higher initial cost, but it often delivers a better ROI through advanced features and ease of collaboration, leading to increased productivity and reduced time to market. Pricing information for GitHub varies, with plans ranging from free for individuals to higher tiers for enterprises.
I have not used GitHub's technical support extensively because there are many resources and a robust knowledge base available due to the large user community.
Some forums help you get answers faster since you just type in your concern and see resolutions from other engineers.
The technical support from GitHub is generally good, and they communicate effectively.
We have never had a problem with scalability, so I would rate it at least eight to nine.
GitHub is more scalable than on-prem solutions, allowing for cloud-based scaling which is beneficial for processing large workloads efficiently.
It provides a reliable environment for code management.
If a skilled developer uses it, it is ten out of ten for stability.
GitHub is mostly stable, but there can be occasional hiccups.
Sometimes we do not get the exact solution, and the suggested solution does not work, so GitHub could improve in that area.
There are still areas for improvement with GitHub Actions and their deployment workflows, as they have made significant progress but are not yet polished.
One area for improvement in GitHub could be integration with other tools, such as test management or project management tools.
The pricing of GitHub depends on the choice of solutions, such as building one's own GitHub Runners to save money or using GitHub's Runners with extra costs.
Normally, GitHub is not expensive, but it would be welcome if it reduces costs for developing countries.
The pricing of GitHub is reasonable, with the cost being around seven dollars per user per month for private repositories.
GitHub Actions for CI/CD implementation.
For branching, it works well, especially in an agile environment.
GitHub Actions allow for creating multiple jobs that run in different stages such as build, test, and deploy, which enable better visibility and control over the deployment pipeline.
We monitor all Version Control reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.