GitHub Reviews

We use GitHub for source control.

GitHub is convenient and easy to use.

GitHub should provide more integration in their next release, including integrating with Jenkins, CI/CD and Jira.

We have been using GitHub for two years.

GitHub is a stable solution.

The solution is scalable. We have approximately 200 users.

Prior to using GitHub, we used Subversion, or SVN and CVS. We switched to GitHub because of the cloud enablement as well as the ease of use.

I would recommend GitHub to anyone considering implementing the solution into their organization. 

Overall, I would rate GitHub a nine out of 10.

We primarily use the solution for sourcing candidates.

I like finding individuals with more repositories and more followers, et cetera. It’s great to find the talent who is available and has particular skills.

The solution is scalable.

I do not think they have to increase storage. There’s enough.

From the recruiting standpoint, I would like to see email IDs and phone numbers and a brief introduction about their profile.

I’ve been using the solution for about a year.

The solution is very scalable. It’s expandable if you need it to be.

I’m not sure how many people use the solution in our company.

I’ve never used technical support in the past. I can’t speak to how helpful or responsive they would be.

Positive

We did not previously use a different solution.

There isn’t really an initial setup to deal with.

I can’t speak to the exact cost of the solution.

I’m a customer and end-user.

I’d rate the solution eight 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.

GitHub's workflow is smooth, and it integrates seamlessly with outside projects and libraries. It simplifies our entire development flow.

GitHub's source code management is top-notch. It's easy to inspect changes and visualize code and differences. Their action system is comprehensive in terms of making changes and automation.

GitHub's issue management could be improved a little from an organization standpoint. It would be helpful to have the ability to organize a work board or a backlog more comprehensively. For organizations migrating to GitHub from arbitrary systems, it's a little bit of a headache to move on to that system.

I have been using GitHub since 2009.

We've never had any performance issues with GitHub. I don't think we've had an outage yet and we've been on it for a number of years now. 

GitHub is extremely scalable. We only have about half a dozen repositories in there, but I know some organizations with hundreds working without issue. We're using it extensively. Everybody in the organization is using it, but it's fewer than 50 because our organization's pretty small. We'll increase usage naturally with time, but we're almost close to 100 percent, so it's hard to really increase usage at this point.

I read the documentation, but we haven't had any need for tech support.

We were using Azure DevOps previously, and we switched to GitHub primarily due to cost. The automated build platform is costly on the Azure DevOps side but significantly less expensive on the Azure side.

Setting up GitHub is extremely simple. You create an account in five minutes and have your first repository set up in another two after that. You're up and going in under 10 minutes.

It's a lightweight solution. The only maintenance is usually related to active stuff that we're doing on the platform. I wouldn't classify that as maintenance. That's product improvement.

We are a step above the base package. It's not the enterprise package. We're using the teams or the organization package. It has a few different names.

I rate GitHub nine out of 10 for overall ease of use and completeness in functionality.

GitHub is essentially a repository of code. It's where you source your code with the client and allows you to use Git. You get versioning and everything else for multiple deployments or codes. That's how we use it.

We stopped the development code on our machines, and we moved everything to GitHub. So, everyone is working on the latest code no matter what we do.

The accessibility is free.

There is room for improvement in terms of interface because  I had a problem with developers who didn't know what GitHub was, and it was a little bit strange to explain. 

I have been using GitHub for three years. We use the latest version. 

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten.

The scalability is very good. It has never let me down.

The initial setup is okay. You need to know what you're doing.

I saw 100% ROI. 

Price is free. 

It is way better than developing software by yourself. I would definitely recommend using the solution.

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

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.

We use GitHub for code versioning; with multiple developers working on the same projects. It gives us a central source for our code. We commit our code to the cloud using the API called Gita, which tracks which developers have uploaded the code, which have changed it and so on. 

The code versioning is excellent, and having a detailed log, including every change made to the code by every developer, is invaluable. It makes it so that if there is a bug or problem in the product channel, we can find exactly where it happened and how to fix it.

There can be conflict issues when two developers work on the same file or line of code, and it would be great to see that improved, possibly with an AI solution. 

A great feature would be the AI for code conflicts, enabling us to choose which code edit is the one we want to go with. 

I've been using the solution for about eight years. 

GitHub is stable, and they are improving in terms of security. 

The product is scalable. We have about 20 end users in total. 

The support is average; they can be inconsistent and it would be good if they were more responsive. 

Neutral

The initial setup is a little complex because it requires some knowledge of GitHub and code versioning. Certain steps need to be taken in a specific order, and if any are skipped or done wrong, it can lead to failure. Aside from the mentioned challenges, one staff member can complete the setup.

There is sufficient documentation to help with the setup process.

The setup was implemented in-house. 

GitHub is an open-source product, but when using the free-to-use version, anyone can see the code we're working on.

If you purchase a license, there's an option to make your code private, and our organization has a license.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

Compared to the competition, I would say GitHub is the best, as it has the most robust security, and most of the developer community is familiar with it. Bitbucket is also an excellent solution with solid security, but more developers would require training.

We are using GitHub for the development environment. After we develop some applications, we are pushing actually on both settings. 

I would like to see more security where a plugin was available for us to update in relation to security.

I have been using GitHub for the past seven years.

We are finding GitHub is very stable. Because it is the one that we are actually using on the cloud, it is easy for actual resources.

We currently did not choose the option with the subscription, but the free version actually provided by GitHub and GitLab is acceptable for us. Maybe the institution wants to increase the number of developers to twenty from what we currently have three, then definitely we will increase and prefer to have additional services from GitHub as well as GitLab.

Technical support is excellent on a scale of one to ten I give technical support a ten.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward and easy. For someone who has actually good experience in software development, including using a repository solution, I think it is easy. Beginners need to refer to the manual and see some online tutorials to receive assistance so that it is easier for them to setup.

You can do the deployment in-house without a problem.

We are currently paying nothing for GitHub.

I think I remember Tortu was the name of the product. There is a Q Balance in our repository providers. I think that one is Microsoft. I do not know exactly, but we are not using it. We tried it but we returned to GitHub.

If you are working in development I would recommend using GitHub. I would rate GitHub a ten out of ten.