Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
AWS CodeBuild vs GitHub: What are the differences?
Introduction: AWS CodeBuild is a fully-managed continuous integration service provided by Amazon Web Services (AWS), while GitHub is a web-based hosting service for version control using Git.
Pricing Model: One key difference between AWS CodeBuild and GitHub is their pricing model. CodeBuild follows a usage-based pricing model, where you only pay for the compute resources used during the build process. On the other hand, GitHub offers both free and paid plans based on the number of collaborators and private repositories, with pricing not directly tied to build usage.
Managed Service: AWS CodeBuild is a managed service offered by AWS, which means that AWS is responsible for managing the underlying infrastructure and ensuring the service's availability and scalability. GitHub, on the other hand, is primarily a code hosting platform and does not provide the same level of infrastructure management as CodeBuild.
Build Environment: AWS CodeBuild provides build environments that are isolated and customizable, allowing you to define specific requirements and configurations for individual builds. GitHub, on the other hand, does not have the same level of flexibility and control over the build environment, as it relies on third-party build systems or integrations.
Integration with AWS Services: AWS CodeBuild seamlessly integrates with other AWS services, such as AWS CodePipeline for continuous delivery, AWS CodeCommit for source code management, and AWS CloudFormation for infrastructure provisioning. GitHub also offers integrations with various services, but the level of integration may not be as comprehensive as what is available within the AWS ecosystem.
Security and Authentication: AWS CodeBuild provides built-in security features and supports AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) for fine-grained access control. GitHub also offers security features and supports authentication mechanisms, but the level of control and granularity may differ from what is available in AWS CodeBuild.
Scalability and Availability: AWS CodeBuild is designed to be highly scalable and available, allowing you to scale builds effortlessly and ensuring the service's reliability. GitHub, being primarily a code hosting platform, may have limitations in terms of scalability and availability when it comes to continuous integration and build processes.
In Summary, AWS CodeBuild and GitHub differ in their pricing models, level of management, build environment customization, integrations with other services, security and authentication capabilities, and scalability and availability.
Hi, I need advice. In my project, we are using Bitbucket hosted on-prem, Jenkins, and Jira. Also, we have restrictions not to use any plugins for code review, code quality, code security, etc., with bitbucket. Now we want to migrate to AWS CodeCommit, which would mean that we can use, let's say, Amazon CodeGuru for code reviews and move to AWS CodeBuild and AWS CodePipeline for build automation in the future rather than using Jenkins.
Now I want advice on below.
- Is it a good idea to migrate from Bitbucket to AWS Codecommit?
- If we want to integrate Jira with AWS Codecommit, then how can we do this? If a developer makes any changes in Jira, then a build should be triggered automatically in AWS and create a Jira ticket if the build fails. So, how can we achieve this?
Hi Kavita. It would be useful to explain in a bit more detail the integration to Jira you would like to achieve. Some of the Jira plugins will work with any git repository, regardless if its github/bitbucket/gitlab.
I first used BitBucket because it had private repo's, and it didn't disappoint me. Also with the smooth integration of Jira, the decision to use BitBucket as a full application maintenance service was as easy as 1, 2, 3.
I honestly love BitBucket, by the looks, by the UI, and the smooth integration with Tower.
Do you review your Pull/Merge Request before assigning Reviewers?
If you work in a team opening a Pull Request (or Merge Request) looks appropriate. However, have you ever thought about opening a Pull/Merge Request when working by yourself? Here's a checklist of things you can review in your own:
- Pick the correct target branch
- Make Drafts explicit
- Name things properly
- Ask help for tools
- Remove the noise
- Fetch necessary data
- Understand Mergeability
- Pass the message
- Add screenshots
- Be found in the future
- Comment inline in your changes
Read the blog post for more detailed explanation for each item :D
What else do you review before asking for code review?
Using an inclusive language is crucial for fostering a diverse culture. Git has changed the naming conventions to be more language-inclusive, and so you should change. Our development tools, like GitHub and GitLab, already supports the change.
SourceLevel deals very nicely with repositories that changed the master branch to a more appropriate word. Besides, you can use the grep linter the look for exclusive terms contained in the source code.
As the inclusive language gap may happen in other aspects of our lives, have you already thought about them?
One of the magic tricks git performs is the ability to rewrite log history. You can do it in many ways, but git rebase -i
is the one I most use. With this command, It’s possible to switch commits order, remove a commit, squash two or more commits, or edit, for instance.
It’s particularly useful to run it before opening a pull request. It allows developers to “clean up” the mess and organize commits before submitting to review. If you follow the practice 3 and 4, then the list of commits should look very similar to a task list. It should reveal the rationale you had, telling the story of how you end up with that final code.
Out of most of the VCS solutions out there, we found Gitlab was the most feature complete with a free community edition. Their DevSecops offering is also a very robust solution. Gitlab CI/CD was quite easy to setup and the direct integration with your VCS + CI/CD is also a bonus. Out of the box integration with major cloud providers, alerting through instant messages etc. are all extremely convenient. We push our CI/CD updates to MS Teams.
Gitlab as A LOT of features that GitHub and Azure DevOps are missing. Even if both GH and Azure are backed by Microsoft, GitLab being open source has a faster upgrade rate and the hosted by gitlab.com solution seems more appealing than anything else! Quick win: the UI is way better and the Pipeline is way easier to setup on GitLab!
At DeployPlace we use self-hosted GitLab, we have chosen GitLab as most of us are familiar with it. We are happy with all features GitLab provides, I can’t imagine our life without integrated GitLab CI. Another important feature for us is integrated code review tool, we use it every day, we use merge requests, code reviews, branching. To be honest, most of us have GitHub accounts as well, we like to contribute in open source, and we want to be a part of the tech community, but lack of solutions from GitHub in the area of CI doesn’t let us chose it for our projects.
Pros of AWS CodeBuild
- Pay per minute7
- Parameter Store integration for passing secrets5
- Integrated with AWS4
- Streaming logs to Amazon CloudWatch3
- Bit bucket integration3
- GitHub Webhooks support2
- AWS Config and Config rule integration for compliance2
- VPC PrivateLinks to invoke service without internet2
- Windows/.NET support1
- Jenkins plugin integration1
- Ondemand scaling of build jobs1
- Scheduled builds with CloudWatch Events integration1
- Local build debug support1
- Native support for accessing Amazon VPC resources1
- Docker based build environment1
- Support for bringing custom Docker images1
- Fully managed (no installation/updates, servers to mai1
- PCI, SOC, ISO, HIPAA compliant1
- Full API/SDKs/CLI support1
- YAML based configuration1
- Great support (forums, premium support, SO, GitHub)1
- Perpetual free tier option (100 mins/month)1
- GitHub Enterprise support1
Pros of GitHub
- Open source friendly1.8K
- Easy source control1.5K
- Nice UI1.3K
- Great for team collaboration1.1K
- Easy setup867
- Issue tracker504
- Great community486
- Remote team collaboration482
- Great way to share451
- Pull request and features planning442
- Just works147
- Integrated in many tools132
- Free Public Repos121
- Github Gists116
- Github pages112
- Easy to find repos83
- Open source62
- It's free60
- Easy to find projects60
- Network effect56
- Extensive API49
- Organizations43
- Branching42
- Developer Profiles34
- Git Powered Wikis32
- Great for collaboration30
- It's fun24
- Clean interface and good integrations23
- Community SDK involvement22
- Learn from others source code20
- Because: Git16
- It integrates directly with Azure14
- Newsfeed10
- Standard in Open Source collab10
- Fast8
- It integrates directly with Hipchat8
- Beautiful user experience8
- Easy to discover new code libraries7
- Smooth integration6
- Cloud SCM6
- Nice API6
- Graphs6
- Integrations6
- It's awesome6
- Quick Onboarding5
- Remarkable uptime5
- CI Integration5
- Hands down best online Git service available5
- Reliable5
- Free HTML hosting4
- Version Control4
- Simple but powerful4
- Unlimited Public Repos at no cost4
- Security options4
- Loved by developers4
- Uses GIT4
- Easy to use and collaborate with others4
- IAM3
- Nice to use3
- Ci3
- Easy deployment via SSH3
- Good tools support2
- Leads the copycats2
- Free private repos2
- Free HTML hostings2
- Easy and efficient maintainance of the projects2
- Beautiful2
- Never dethroned2
- IAM integration2
- Very Easy to Use2
- Easy to use2
- All in one development service2
- Self Hosted2
- Issues tracker2
- Easy source control and everything is backed up2
- Profound1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of AWS CodeBuild
- Poor branch support2
Cons of GitHub
- Owned by micrcosoft53
- Expensive for lone developers that want private repos37
- Relatively slow product/feature release cadence15
- API scoping could be better10
- Only 3 collaborators for private repos8
- Limited featureset for issue management3
- GitHub Packages does not support SNAPSHOT versions2
- Does not have a graph for showing history like git lens2
- No multilingual interface1
- Takes a long time to commit1
- Expensive1