71–80 of 164 posts
This is clickbait. Nevertheless, my first thought was "GitHub is much better and much much safer than anything Google can offer". Back in the day, were Microsoft to offer a competitor to a small company's product and my reaction would be: "They're dead in the water". Food for thought...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be honest, I think it has always been sucky in many ways. They change it quite frequently, but it doesn't actually seem to be changes that improve the UI. It only makes it frustratingly different than before. I often wonder if the projects my team works on ends up that way. We A/B test a lot of changes and often find that it makes absolutely no difference in conversion. In the end we often don't change things that…
Exactly this, it always sucks and it changes too often in completely random ways. Github's issue tracker is also very half baked, every real project has to has a Trac instance or so somewhere else. But _it has critical mass_, and pull requests and the way commenting them and testing them etc works is really awesome, and it'll be hard for a new competitor to get people to move.
Granted, there are a lot of warts and confusing navigation and organization, but in many ways this is a function of trying to serve so many disparate use cases. Certainly it could be a lot better, but it's far from easy—certainly not the type of thing you could just throw a UX designer at, but something where you need a UX visionary who also happens to be a developer with deep understanding and practice using git.
I agree with you that Issues is terrible though. I tried to use it for my team, but the show-stopper was that you can't move issues between repos, and so there is no way to stay organized across a non-monolith architecture where you need to take issues in based on front-facing products and not just code-level concerns. If it wasn't for that, we probably would have tried to suffer through it just for the integration benefits.
My team has just started looking for a github replacement because the code review workflow is just not working for us, we need something with more structure. I think there's plenty of space for feature and price competition, especially for private repos where github's social network effects don't matter as much.
Sure, it'll compete with GitHub but I think a more exciting possibility is that it'll compete with Heroku. CodeCommit (similar service offered by AWS) integrates with other AWS services to help manage deployment and releases but I still find the entire AWS platform to be very difficult to use. I would love to see Google add pressure to all three companies to make their respective products better.
That along with the cloud debugging from their git repo are some nice to haves.
When I go to princing and quota I get: > This Beta release of Cloud Source Repositories is free and can be used to store up to 500 MB of source files. No thanks! I still remember what happened with AppEngine.
What happened with AppEngine?
I used it a little bit a few years ago and despite the issues with the original platform I'm quite interested in the new Docker based managed-vm app engine platform, where you can build your own images and have much better control, and compute engine pricing.
The reason people use GitHub is everything around the git hosting: the web interface, the account system, pull requests and issues, forking, comments, wikis, Pages, even the desktop and mobile apps. Hosting git repositories is straightforward, by design. This article is only slightly more sensible than claiming that S3 is a GitHub competitor because you can git clone over HTTP.
But for everything that I really care about, I still maintain private repos on my home server.
My team has just started looking for a github replacement because the code review workflow is just not working for us, we need something with more structure. I think there's plenty of space for feature and price competition, especially for private repos where github's social network effects don't matter as much.
can you elaborate a bit more what you are looking for? What kind of structure do you need?
Without these informations, I'll just throw gitlab in the possible alternatives pool.
https://about.gitlab.com/features/
Please note that I'm biased since I'm on the gitlab core team. :)
Anecdote: I remember using mercurial on google code, at some point it did not work, a push was just timing out for some reason. I switched to bitbutcket and then used github. Google answered the issue, but I already made the switch, and I don't even know if they fixed it.
My team has just started looking for a github replacement because the code review workflow is just not working for us, we need something with more structure. I think there's plenty of space for feature and price competition, especially for private repos where github's social network effects don't matter as much.
What kind of structure? Bitbucket/Stash have explicit "approve" built in, which has always been plenty for my use case.