AWS CodeCommit vs Fork: What are the differences?
Developers describe AWS CodeCommit as "Fully-managed source control service that makes it easy for companies to host secure and highly scalable private Git repositories". CodeCommit eliminates the need to operate your own source control system or worry about scaling its infrastructure. You can use CodeCommit to securely store anything from source code to binaries, and it works seamlessly with your existing Git tools. On the other hand, Fork is detailed as "Fast and Friendly Git Client for Mac". Manage your repositories without leaving the application. Organize the repositores into categories. Fork's Diff Viewer provides a clear view to spot the changes in your source code quickly.
AWS CodeCommit can be classified as a tool in the "Code Collaboration & Version Control" category, while Fork is grouped under "Source Code Management Desktop Apps".
"Free private repos" is the primary reason why developers consider AWS CodeCommit over the competitors, whereas "One of the easiest and fastest git GUIs" was stated as the key factor in picking Fork.
According to the StackShare community, AWS CodeCommit has a broader approval, being mentioned in 24 company stacks & 17 developers stacks; compared to Fork, which is listed in 4 company stacks and 7 developer stacks.
What is AWS CodeCommit?
What is Fork?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Sign up to add, upvote and see more prosMake informed product decisions
What are the cons of using Fork?
Sign up to add, upvote and see more consMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
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.