71–80 of 86 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slight correction, the sales org uses GitLab, mainly to segregate any “code” they build for customers. Internal AWS/Amazon teams use an internal git-backed UI.
The fact that there was no dogfooding in many years here tells everything one needs to know about CodeCommit.
Not surprised. CodeCommit was released alongside a stable of other mediocre tools for CI/CD (CodePipeline and CodeDeploy if I recall correctly) that reflected the pinnacle of AWS's mid-to-late 2010s attitude, which is to find something popular and offer an incredibly mediocre alternative to it that will still be used by those teams who want to move as much as possible to AWS. Seems like that stalled out a bit, mostly…
Any insights on _why_ they turned out to be mediocre? Is it because of them being released as MVP and staying that way for many years or just a lack of interest afterwards?
Every AWS feature requires some stupid aws cli call that gives you 12 hours of usage. So every day depending on how many products you're using, you have stupid shit to run. Was codecommit like that
The timeout is configurable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slight correction, the sales org uses GitLab, mainly to segregate any “code” they build for customers. Internal AWS/Amazon teams use an internal git-backed UI.
The fact that there was no dogfooding in many years here tells everything one needs to know about CodeCommit.
Dogfooding is for simpler companies. It's also bullshit and best for product managers and sales. Let tech work with what's best for their specific internal environment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't it reflect more on the quality of the people involved? These tools came out at the same time as a bunch of other AWS tools that are still used. The platform itself, the company around these teams was the same, so why did Code Commit suck but other AWS products from the same vintage turned out great?
You’ve never been part of a large organization have you? I have a little insight on how things like CodeCommit fall behind the competition. I worked at AWS in the Professional Services division. For a little over two years I was on a makeshift team maintaining and improving a very popular open source project in its niche. The project was hosted on “AWS Samples” ( https://github.com/aws-samples ). Once approved for th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone's and I mean everyone's high level stuff is garbage. Remember when Lotus Notes was the peak. The only thing constant is change etc.
GitHub is good, yes? And Excel? And Notion? And Datadog? Lots of companies with excellent user friendly products. GCP is good in that regard too, minus IAM.
Care to elaborate why? IMO, GCP's IAM is years ahead of say AWS.
In writing this up - https://simonwillison.net/2024/Jul/30/aws-codecommit-quietly... - I found out about a much more significant deprecation: Amazon QLDB (Quantum Ledger Database - a blockchain-ish thing they launched in GA in 2019) is being hard-deprecated too! They're shutting it down completely on 31st July 2025, having announced the shutdown a few weeks ago (on July 18th). QLDB shutdown announcement in the releas…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>be used by those teams who want to move as much as possible to AWS By teams that have been mandated to move as much as possible to AWS by their company's senior leadership, because it simplified accounts/they negotiated a "great contract" etc.
Funnily enough when my infra team talked to AWS solution architects about this topic, it seems they were very upfront: don't touch CodeCommit, AWS/Amazon teams mostly use GitLab internally. And we do have a partnership plus discounts conditional to minimum usage volumes.
Here's a project from AWS using the CDK to setup a CI/CD pipeline with Github actions: