What is Fisheye and what are its top alternatives?
Top Alternatives to Fisheye
Bitbucket gives teams one place to plan projects, collaborate on code, test and deploy, all with free private Git repositories. Teams choose Bitbucket because it has a superior Jira integration, built-in CI/CD, & is free for up to 5 users. ...
GitLab offers git repository management, code reviews, issue tracking, activity feeds and wikis. Enterprises install GitLab on-premise and connect it with LDAP and Active Directory servers for secure authentication and authorization. A single GitLab server can handle more than 25,000 users but it is also possible to create a high availability setup with multiple active servers. ...
Sourcegraph is a universal code search tool that lets you find and fix things across ALL your code -- any code host, any repo, any language. Stay in flow and find your answers quickly with smart filters, and more. ...
Hound by Etsy
Hound is an extremely fast source code search engine. The core is based on this article (and code) from Russ Cox: Regular Expression Matching with a Trigram Index. Hound itself is a static React frontend that talks to a Go backend. The backend keeps an up-to-date index for each repository and answers searches through a minimal API. ...
It is a fast and usable source code search and cross reference engine, written in Java. It helps you search, cross-reference and navigate your source tree. It can understand various program file formats and version control histories of many source code management systems. ...
Fisheye alternatives & related posts
- Free private repos904
- Simple setup397
- Nice ui and tools345
- Unlimited private repositories340
- Affordable git hosting239
- Integrates with many apis and services122
- Reliable uptime118
- Nice gui85
- Pull requests and code reviews83
- Very customisable57
- Mercurial repositories15
- SourceTree integration13
- JIRA integration10
- Track every commit to an issue in JIRA9
- Best free alternative to Github7
- Automatically share repositories with all your teammates7
- Deployment hooks7
- Compatible with Mac and Windows6
- Source Code Insight5
- Login with Google4
- Create a wiki4
- Approve pull request button4
- #2 Atlassian Product after JIRA3
- Customizable pipelines3
- Also supports Mercurial2
- Unlimited Private Repos at no cost2
- Continuous Integration and Delivery2
- Mercurial Support1
- Issues tracker1
- Open source friendly1
- Multilingual interface1
- Academic license program1
- IAM integration1
- Free Private Repositories0
- Not much community activity19
- Difficult to review prs because of confusing ui17
- Quite buggy14
- Managed by enterprise Java company10
- CI tool is not free of charge8
- Complexity with rights management7
- Only 5 collaborators for private repos6
- Slow performance4
- No AWS Codepipelines integration2
- No more Mercurial repositories1
- No server side git-hook support1
related Bitbucket posts
I use GitLab when building side-projects and MVPs. The interface and interactions are close enough to those of GitHub to prevent cognitive switching costs between professional and personal projects hosted on different services.
GitLab also provides a suite of tools including issue/project management, CI/CD with GitLab CI, and validation/landing pages with GitLab Pages. With everything in one place, on an #OpenSourceCloud GitLab makes it easy for me to manage much larger projects on my own, than would be possible with other solutions or tools.
It's petty I know, but I can also read the GitLab code diffs far more easily than diffs on GitHub or Bitbucket...they just look better in my opinion.
A bit difference in GitHub and GitLab though both are Version Control repository management services which provides key component in the software development workflow. A decision of choosing GitHub over GitLab is major leap extension from code management, to deployment and monitoring alongside looking beyond the code base hosting provided best fitted tools for developer communities.
- Authentication stages - With GitLab you can set and modify people’s permissions according to their role. In GitHub, you can decide if someone gets a read or write access to a repository.
- Built-In Continuous Integrations - GitLab offers its very own CI for free. No need to use an external CI service. And if you are already used to an external CI, you can obviously integrate with Jenkins, etc whereas GitHub offers various 3rd party integrations – such as Travis CI, CircleCI or Codeship – for running and testing your code. However, there’s no built-in CI solution at the moment.
- Import/Export Resources - GitLab offers detailed documentation on how to import your data from other vendors – such as GitHub, Bitbucket to GitLab. GitHub, on the other hand, does not offer such detailed documentation for the most common git repositories. However, GitHub offers to use GitHub Importer if you have your source code in Subversion, Mercurial, TFS and others.
Also when it comes to exporting data, GitLab seems to do a pretty solid job, offering you the ability to export your projects including the following data:
- Wiki and project repositories
- Project uploads
- The configuration including webhooks and services
- Issues with comments, merge requests with diffs and comments, labels, milestones, snippets, and other project entities.
GitHub, on the other hand, seems to be more restrictive when it comes to export features of existing GitHub repositories. * Integrations - #githubmarketplace gives you an essence to have multiple and competitive integrations whereas you will find less in the GitLab.
So go ahead with better understanding.
- Self hosted489
- Has community edition332
- Easy setup236
- Familiar interface235
- Includes many features, including ci130
- Nice UI106
- Good integration with gitlabci80
- Simple setup52
- Has an official mobile app32
- Free private repository30
- Continuous Integration24
- Open source, great ui (like github)16
- Slack Integration14
- Full CI flow9
- User, group, and project access management is simple8
- Free and unlimited private git repos8
- Intuitive UI7
- All in one (Git, CI, Agile..)7
- Built-in CI6
- Both public and private Repositories4
- Mattermost Chat client3
- Integrated Docker Registry3
- It's fully integrated2
- Unlimited free repos & collaborators2
- I like the its runners and executors feature2
- So easy to use2
- One-click install through DigitalOcean2
- It's powerful source code management tool2
- Build/pipeline definition alongside code2
- Security and Stable2
- Issue system2
- Free private repos2
- Low maintenance cost due omnibus-deployment2
- Powerful Continuous Integration System1
- Powerful software planning and maintaining tools1
- Groups of groups1
- Kubernetes integration with GitLab CI1
- Review Apps feature1
- Built-in Docker Registry1
- Because is the best remote host for git repositories1
- Not Microsoft Owned1
- Full DevOps suite with Git1
- Many private repo1
- Native CI1
- HipChat intergration1
- Kubernetes Integration1
- Published IP list for whitelisting (gl-infra#434)1
- Great for team collaboration1
- It includes everything I need, all packaged with docker1
- Multilingual interface1
- The dashboard with deployed environments1
- Supports Radius/Ldap & Browser Code Edits0
- Slow ui performance26
- Introduce breaking bugs every release6
- Insecure (no published IP list for whitelisting)5
- Built-in Docker Registry0
- Review Apps feature0
related GitLab posts
I have mixed feelings on GitHub as a product and our use of it for the Zulip open source project. On the one hand, I do feel that being on GitHub helps people discover Zulip, because we have enough stars (etc.) that we rank highly among projects on the platform. and there is a definite benefit for lowering barriers to contribution (which is important to us) that GitHub has such a dominant position in terms of what everyone has accounts with.
But even ignoring how one might feel about their new corporate owner (MicroSoft), in a lot of ways GitHub is a bad product for open source projects. Years after the "Dear GitHub" letter, there are still basic gaps in its issue tracker:
- You can't give someone permission to label/categorize issues without full write access to a project (including ability to merge things to master, post releases, etc.).
- You can't let anyone with a GitHub account self-assign issues to themselves.
- Many more similar issues.
It's embarrassing, because I've talked to GitHub product managers at various open source events about these things for 3 years, and they always agree the thing is important, but then nothing ever improves in the Issues product. Maybe the new management at MicroSoft will fix their product management situation, but if not, I imagine we'll eventually do the migration to GitLab.
We have a custom bot project, http://github.com/zulip/zulipbot, to deal with some of these issues where possible, and every other large project we talk to does the same thing, more or less.
We use GitLab CI because of the great native integration as a part of the GitLab framework and the linting-capabilities it offers. The visualization of complex pipelines and the embedding within the project overview made Gitlab CI even more convenient. We use it for all projects, all deployments and as a part of GitLab Pages.
While we initially used the Shell-executor, we quickly switched to the Docker-executor and use it exclusively now.
We formerly used Jenkins but preferred to handle everything within GitLab . Aside from the unification of our infrastructure another motivation was the "configuration-in-file"-approach, that Gitlab CI offered, while Jenkins support of this concept was very limited and users had to resort to using the webinterface. Since the file is included within the repository, it is also version controlled, which was a huge plus for us.
- Understand the connections between code components4
- Discover why code works the way it does3