Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
AWS CodeCommit vs Fork: What are the differences?
1. Hosting and Repository Management: AWS CodeCommit is a fully-managed source control service that makes it easy for teams to host Git repositories, collaborate on code, and manage their software development projects. It provides a secure and scalable platform for storing and versioning your code, with features like access control, repository management, and support for branching and merging. On the other hand, Fork is a Git client for macOS and Windows that allows you to manage your Git repositories and collaborate with your team. While CodeCommit offers hosting and repository management as a service, Fork is a desktop application that provides a user-friendly interface for working with Git repositories.
2. Integration with AWS services: One of the key advantages of using AWS CodeCommit is its seamless integration with other AWS services. CodeCommit can be easily integrated with services like AWS CodeBuild, AWS CodeDeploy, and AWS CodePipeline, allowing you to automate your software development processes and build a continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline. This integration enables you to use CodeCommit as a central repository for managing your code and deploying it to different environments. In contrast, Fork does not provide direct integration with AWS services, as it is primarily a desktop application for managing Git repositories.
3. Scalability and Availability: AWS CodeCommit is designed to be highly scalable and available, with built-in redundancy and automatic scaling capabilities. It allows you to store an unlimited number of repositories, and it can handle large codebases and high traffic volumes. CodeCommit also provides automatic backups and disaster recovery features, ensuring that your code is always safe and accessible. Fork, on the other hand, does not offer the same level of scalability and availability, as it relies on the resources of the local machine where it is installed.
4. Managed Service vs. Desktop Application: AWS CodeCommit is a managed service provided by AWS, which means that AWS takes care of the infrastructure and maintenance tasks. This allows you to focus on your development work without worrying about managing servers or software updates. Fork, on the other hand, is a desktop application that needs to be installed locally on each user's machine. This gives you more control over your development environment but also requires you to manage the installation and updates of the Fork application.
5. Pricing and Cost Structure: AWS CodeCommit follows AWS's pricing model, where you pay for the storage and data transfer used by your repositories. The pricing is based on the number of active users and the amount of data stored. Fork, on the other hand, is a one-time purchase application with a fixed cost. Once you purchase Fork, you can use it without any additional charges or subscriptions. The cost of Fork is not dependent on the number of users or the size of your codebase.
6. Collaboration and Teamwork: AWS CodeCommit provides built-in collaboration and teamwork features, such as access control, code reviews, and pull requests. It allows multiple developers to work on the same codebase concurrently and provides a platform for reviewing and approving code changes. Fork, on the other hand, primarily focuses on the individual developer's workflow. While it supports basic collaboration features like branching and merging, it does not have the same level of built-in collaboration tools as CodeCommit.
In Summary, AWS CodeCommit is a fully-managed source control service that offers hosting and repository management, integration with AWS services, scalability and availability, collaboration and teamwork features, and a flexible pricing model. Fork, on the other hand, is a Git client desktop application that provides a user-friendly interface for managing Git repositories but lacks the fully-managed service capabilities and integration with AWS services provided by CodeCommit.
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 explored many Git Desktop tools for the Mac and my final decision was to use Fork. What I love about for that it contains three features, I like about a Git Client tool.
It allows * to handle day to day git operations (least important for me as I am cli junkie) * it helps to investigate the history * most important of all, it has a repo manager which many other tools are missing.
Pros of AWS CodeCommit
- Free private repos44
- IAM integration26
- Pay-As-You-Go Pricing24
- Amazon feels the most Secure20
- Repo data encrypted at rest19
- I can make repository by myself if I have AWS account11
- Faster deployments when using other AWS services11
- AWS CodePipeline integration8
- Codebuild integration6
- Does not support web hooks yet! :(6
- Cost Effective4
- No Git LFS! Dealbreaker for me2
- Elastic Beanstalk Integration2
- Integrated with AWS Ecosystem2
- Integration via SQS/SNS for events (replaces webhooks)1
- IAM1
- Issue tracker1
- Available in Ireland (Dublin) region1
- CodeDeploy Integration1
- CodeCommit Trigger for an AWS Lambda Function1
- Open source friendly1
- Only US Region1
- Ui0
Pros of Fork
- One of the easiest and fastest git GUIs19
- Nice UX14
- Does the job way better than others13
- Fast, Great support, Does-it-all, blazing fast13
- Dark theme11
- Intuitive interactive rebase and conflict resolution UI9
- Gitflow support9
- Excellent commit history tree view7
- This even looks the same as SourceTree5
- Repository Manager4
- Built-in developer feedback3
- Countless quality of life features3
- Github Notifications2
- Not buggy, works smoothly2
- Keyaboard-only2
- Visual branch history2
- Reflog support2
- Git ammend1
- Smart 'Open in' menu; e.g. explorer, bit, giithub .1
- Interactive rebase window1
- Native application1
- Intuitive merge conflict resolution1
- Unique Activity Manager shows current/past operations1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of AWS CodeCommit
- UI sucks12
- SLOW4
- No Issue Tracker3
- Bad diffing/no blame2
- NO LFS support2
- No fork2
- No webhooks2
- Can't download file from UI1
- Only time based triggers1
- Accident-prone UI0
Cons of Fork
- Poorly written license2
- Stability is fragile when looking deeply into history1
- Merges that require interactive user decision1