AWS CodeCommit vs Bitbucket vs GitHub: What are the differences?
AWS CodeCommit is a cloud-based repository management system for storing and management of assets. The assets can be source code, binary files, and documents. Offers full compatibility to Git as well, allowing you to move your local repositories to cloud-based repositories in CodeCommit. Bitbucket allows integrations with different sources. A web-based version-control-repository hosting service owned by Atlassian, Bitbucket is used extensively for source code and development projects that use either Mercurial or Git revision control systems. Github is now an industry as well as a coding norm. Easy to use, intuitive, accessible, with the simplest of user interfaces. Almost every open source system uses Git these days.
We are using a Bitbucket server, and due to migration efforts and new Atlassian community license changes, we need to move to a new self-hosted solution. The new data-center license for Atlassian, available in February, will be community provisioned (free). Along with that community license, other technologies will be coming with it (Crucible, Confluence, and Jira). Is there value in a paid-for license to get the GitHub Enterprise? Are the tools that come with it worth the cost?
I know it is about $20 per 10 seats, and we have about 300 users. Have other convertees to Microsoft's tools found it easy to do a migration? Is the toolset that much more beneficial to the free suite that one can get from Atlassian?
So far, free seems to be the winner, and the familiarization with Atlassian implementation and maintenance is understood. Going to GitHub, are there any distinct challenges to be found or any perks to be attained?
These are pretty competitive, and to recommend one over the other would require understanding your usage. Also, what other tools you use: for instance, what do you use for Issue-tracking, or for build pipelines. In your case, since you are already using Bitbucket, the question would be: do you have any current pain-points? And, on the other hand, do you already use Atlassian's JIRA, where you'd benefit from the tight integration? So, though I would not recommend one over the other just in general,. But, if Bitbucket fulfills your current use-cases, then there seems to be little motivation to move.
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.
Both of us are far more familiar with GitHub than Gitlab, and so for our first big project together decided to go with what we know here instead of figuring out something new (there are so many new things we need to figure out, might as well reduce the number of optionally new things, lol). We aren't currently taking advantage of GitHub Actions or very many other built-in features (besides Dependabot) but luckily it integrates very well with the other services we're using.
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?
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is AWS CodeCommit?
What is Bitbucket?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
For starters you can fork a repo, edit it online and send a pull request which is huge if its something very small that you want to commit. The whole pull request system, the UI and the UX are great. If I sent out a pull request that failed on travis CI then all I need to do is fix it in my fork and the original pull request will have these updates as well making it super easy for everyone involved. Overall a great service.
The pull requests are only merged by FF what makes all the merges hard to manage. The IAM configuration is very awkward and the unavailability to add git hooks to prevent commits to be made into the server makes this tool not much usable for a software development company.
I love GitHub! They provide a completely free service for hosting, storing, and collaborating on code. Seriously, if you aren't using them, go sign up now.
Great collaboration-friendly git repository hosting. Plus integration with all sorts of other stuff, like Travis CI. But the command bar has disappeared...
It's the best tools I have ever used.
"Having a CI server building all commits across all branches was a huge first step, but to make this useful we needed to surface the outcome of these builds. This is where GitHub’s commit status API comes in. Every time our CI server begins a build, it pings GitHub’s commit status endpoint, and every time it completes a build it hits the endpoint again with the outcome. Now every open PR includes a yellow/red/green indicator for the branch in question, with a direct link to the build status page on our CI server. In practice this means more transparency, faster feedback cycles, and a guarantee that every branch merged into master has a passing test suite. This integration has been a huge help in keeping our master branch green, and has thus greatly reduced our deploy times (since engineers aren’t waiting on build failures to be resolved in master)."
GitHub is a Web-based Git version control repository hosting service. It is mostly used for computer code. It offers all of the distributed version control and source code management (SCM) functionality of Git as well as adding its own features. It provides access control and several collaboration features such as bug tracking, feature requests, task management, and wikis for every project
Yeah, so we use GitHub, and we basically use a variant of continuous deployment where when anyone merges in a feature that they’ve finished with, they ship it immediately, and we bundle it up as a build pack and send it to all of our EC2 servers... Any developer on the team can trigger a build and deploy at any time. So on a given day, we probably deploy 20 or 30 times to prod.
One thing I really wish GitHub had: Trello-style kanban for Issues. There are a bunch of services and tools that add Kanban to GitHub Issues. But Trello just seems far better. If GitHub had it’s own kanban tool, I’d probably use it. Right now it’s pretty painful to try to tie cards to commits manually (when/if we remember to).
GitHub is a web-based hosting service for version control using Git. It offers all of the distributed version control and source code management (SCM) functionality of Git as well as adding its own features. It provides access control and several collaboration features such as bug tracking, feature requests, task management, and wikis for every project.
I was looking for an alternative to GitHub, where I could store my own private repositories. BitBucket filled that need and has performed extremely well.
I use Bitbucket's git repositories as a low cost config sync between servers.
We use Bitbucket and Bitbucket Pipelines because of its tight integration with JIRA and code authorization features.
The primary drawback is that its extension ecosystem (e.g., PR review tools) is miles behind Github
I use CodeCommit for projects that require a tighter integration with the AWS ecosystem.
Otherwise, my default source control system as a service of choice is: GitHub.
Best GIT repository management software that allows free closed-source projects. Also works seamlessly with other Atlassian products.
Great private repository capabilities that can be used for continuous integration in conjunction with Jira and Bamboo.