AWS CodeCommit vs Gerrit Code Review: What are the differences?

Introduction

In this article, we will compare AWS CodeCommit and Gerrit Code Review, two popular tools used for code collaboration and version control management. Both CodeCommit and Gerrit offer similar functionalities but have some key differences that set them apart.

1. Integration with AWS ecosystem versus open-source tool: One of the main differences between AWS CodeCommit and Gerrit Code Review is their underlying platforms. CodeCommit is a part of the broader AWS ecosystem and integrates seamlessly with other AWS services like AWS CodeBuild and AWS CodePipeline. On the other hand, Gerrit is an open-source tool that can be used with any Git repository.

2. Hosting options: CodeCommit is a fully managed service provided by AWS, which means that the hosting and management of the code repositories are taken care of by AWS. On the contrary, Gerrit needs to be hosted on a separate server, either on-premises or on a cloud provider. This difference gives CodeCommit an advantage in terms of ease of setup and maintenance.

3. Code review workflow: While both CodeCommit and Gerrit offer code review capabilities, they have slightly different workflows. CodeCommit allows for both pull request-based reviews and direct commits, making it suitable for teams with different review preferences. Gerrit, on the other hand, strictly enforces a code review process and only allows code changes through code review submissions. This aspect makes Gerrit more suitable for teams that prioritize code collaboration and review.

4. Authentication and access control: CodeCommit leverages AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) for authentication and access control, allowing for fine-grained permission management based on AWS policies. Gerrit, on the other hand, provides its own authentication mechanisms and access control through user accounts and groups. This difference makes CodeCommit more aligned with existing AWS authentication and access control practices.

5. Scalability and performance: CodeCommit is designed to handle large-scale repositories and can support thousands of concurrent users. AWS ensures high availability, scalability, and reliability of the service. Gerrit's performance, on the other hand, depends on the hosting environment and the resources allocated to the server. This difference makes CodeCommit a better choice for teams with large repositories or a high volume of code changes.

6. Cost structure: AWS CodeCommit has a cost structure based on the number of active users and the amount of storage used. Pricing varies depending on the region and other factors. Gerrit, being an open-source tool, does not have any direct licensing or subscription costs. However, the cost of hosting and managing the Gerrit server needs to be considered.

In summary, AWS CodeCommit and Gerrit Code Review differ in terms of their integration with the AWS ecosystem, hosting options, code review workflows, authentication and access control mechanisms, scalability and performance, as well as their cost structures.