Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
AWS CodeCommit vs GitLab: 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, GitLab is detailed as "Open source self-hosted Git management software". GitLab offers git repository management, code reviews, issue tracking, activity feeds and wikis. Enterprises install GitLab on-premise and connect it with LDAP and Active Directory servers for secure authentication and authorization. A single GitLab server can handle more than 25,000 users but it is also possible to create a high availability setup with multiple active servers.
AWS CodeCommit and GitLab can be primarily classified as "Code Collaboration & Version Control" tools.
Some of the features offered by AWS CodeCommit are:
- Collaboration
- Encryption
- Access Control
On the other hand, GitLab provides the following key features:
- Manage git repositories with fine grained access controls that keep your code secure
- Perform code reviews and enhance collaboration with merge requests
- Each project can also have an issue tracker and a wiki
"Free private repos" is the primary reason why developers consider AWS CodeCommit over the competitors, whereas "Self hosted" was stated as the key factor in picking GitLab.
GitLab is an open source tool with 20.1K GitHub stars and 5.33K GitHub forks. Here's a link to GitLab's open source repository on GitHub.
According to the StackShare community, GitLab has a broader approval, being mentioned in 1233 company stacks & 1475 developers stacks; compared to AWS CodeCommit, which is listed in 25 company stacks and 17 developer stacks.
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.
Both of us are far more familiar with GitHub than Gitlab, and so for our first big project together decided to go with what we know here instead of figuring out something new (there are so many new things we need to figure out, might as well reduce the number of optionally new things, lol). We aren't currently taking advantage of GitHub Actions or very many other built-in features (besides Dependabot) but luckily it integrates very well with the other services we're using.
I first used BitBucket because it had private repo's, and it didn't disappoint me. Also with the smooth integration of Jira, the decision to use BitBucket as a full application maintenance service was as easy as 1, 2, 3.
I honestly love BitBucket, by the looks, by the UI, and the smooth integration with Tower.
Do you review your Pull/Merge Request before assigning Reviewers?
If you work in a team opening a Pull Request (or Merge Request) looks appropriate. However, have you ever thought about opening a Pull/Merge Request when working by yourself? Here's a checklist of things you can review in your own:
- Pick the correct target branch
- Make Drafts explicit
- Name things properly
- Ask help for tools
- Remove the noise
- Fetch necessary data
- Understand Mergeability
- Pass the message
- Add screenshots
- Be found in the future
- Comment inline in your changes
Read the blog post for more detailed explanation for each item :D
What else do you review before asking for code review?
Using an inclusive language is crucial for fostering a diverse culture. Git has changed the naming conventions to be more language-inclusive, and so you should change. Our development tools, like GitHub and GitLab, already supports the change.
SourceLevel deals very nicely with repositories that changed the master branch to a more appropriate word. Besides, you can use the grep linter the look for exclusive terms contained in the source code.
As the inclusive language gap may happen in other aspects of our lives, have you already thought about them?
One of the magic tricks git performs is the ability to rewrite log history. You can do it in many ways, but git rebase -i
is the one I most use. With this command, It’s possible to switch commits order, remove a commit, squash two or more commits, or edit, for instance.
It’s particularly useful to run it before opening a pull request. It allows developers to “clean up” the mess and organize commits before submitting to review. If you follow the practice 3 and 4, then the list of commits should look very similar to a task list. It should reveal the rationale you had, telling the story of how you end up with that final code.
Out of most of the VCS solutions out there, we found Gitlab was the most feature complete with a free community edition. Their DevSecops offering is also a very robust solution. Gitlab CI/CD was quite easy to setup and the direct integration with your VCS + CI/CD is also a bonus. Out of the box integration with major cloud providers, alerting through instant messages etc. are all extremely convenient. We push our CI/CD updates to MS Teams.
Gitlab as A LOT of features that GitHub and Azure DevOps are missing. Even if both GH and Azure are backed by Microsoft, GitLab being open source has a faster upgrade rate and the hosted by gitlab.com solution seems more appealing than anything else! Quick win: the UI is way better and the Pipeline is way easier to setup on GitLab!
At DeployPlace we use self-hosted GitLab, we have chosen GitLab as most of us are familiar with it. We are happy with all features GitLab provides, I can’t imagine our life without integrated GitLab CI. Another important feature for us is integrated code review tool, we use it every day, we use merge requests, code reviews, branching. To be honest, most of us have GitHub accounts as well, we like to contribute in open source, and we want to be a part of the tech community, but lack of solutions from GitHub in the area of CI doesn’t let us chose it for our projects.
Pros of AWS CodeCommit
- Free private repos44
- IAM integration26
- Pay-As-You-Go Pricing24
- Amazon feels the most Secure20
- Repo data encrypted at rest19
- Faster deployments when using other AWS services11
- I can make repository by myself if I have AWS account11
- AWS CodePipeline integration8
- Codebuild integration6
- Does not support web hooks yet! :(6
- Cost Effective4
- No Git LFS! Dealbreaker for me2
- Integrated with AWS Ecosystem2
- Elastic Beanstalk Integration2
- Integration via SQS/SNS for events (replaces webhooks)1
- IAM1
- Open source friendly1
- Only US Region1
- Available in Ireland (Dublin) region1
- CodeDeploy Integration1
- Issue tracker1
- CodeCommit Trigger for an AWS Lambda Function1
- Ui0
Pros of GitLab
- Self hosted505
- Free428
- Has community edition338
- Easy setup241
- Familiar interface239
- Includes many features, including ci136
- Nice UI112
- Good integration with gitlabci83
- Simple setup56
- Has an official mobile app34
- Free private repository33
- Continuous Integration30
- Open source, great ui (like github)21
- Slack Integration17
- Full CI flow13
- Free and unlimited private git repos11
- User, group, and project access management is simple9
- All in one (Git, CI, Agile..)8
- Intuitive UI8
- Built-in CI7
- Both public and private Repositories5
- CI5
- Full DevOps suite with Git5
- So easy to use4
- It's powerful source code management tool4
- Build/pipeline definition alongside code4
- Integrated Docker Registry4
- Mattermost Chat client4
- Issue system4
- Excellent4
- Because is the best remote host for git repositories3
- Low maintenance cost due omnibus-deployment3
- On-premises3
- Security and Stable3
- I like the its runners and executors feature3
- It's fully integrated3
- Unlimited free repos & collaborators3
- Great for team collaboration3
- Free private repos3
- Dockerized3
- One-click install through DigitalOcean2
- Review Apps feature2
- Built-in Docker Registry2
- Powerful software planning and maintaining tools2
- Multilingual interface2
- Groups of groups2
- Beautiful2
- Wounderful2
- Opensource2
- Not Microsoft Owned2
- Published IP list for whitelisting (gl-infra#434)2
- Kubernetes Integration2
- Many private repo2
- HipChat intergration2
- The dashboard with deployed environments2
- Native CI2
- It includes everything I need, all packaged with docker2
- Kubernetes integration with GitLab CI2
- Powerful Continuous Integration System2
- Supports Radius/Ldap & Browser Code Edits1
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 GitLab
- Slow ui performance28
- Introduce breaking bugs every release8
- Insecure (no published IP list for whitelisting)6
- Built-in Docker Registry2
- Review Apps feature1