Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
GitHub vs Reviewable: What are the differences?
Introduction
GitHub and Reviewable are two popular platforms for code review and collaboration in software development. While both platforms offer similar features, they have some key differences that set them apart.
Workflow flexibility: GitHub provides a comprehensive platform for managing code repositories, issue tracking, and collaboration tools. It is widely used for hosting open-source and private projects, with robust version control and branch management capabilities. On the other hand, Reviewable focuses primarily on code review, providing a streamlined interface for reviewing changes, leaving comments, and discussing code. It integrates well with GitHub, making it easy to use alongside the existing workflow.
Interface and usability: GitHub has a feature-rich interface with a multitude of options for managing repositories, collaborating with team members, and tracking issues. It caters to a broad range of users and can be more overwhelming for new users. Reviewable, on the other hand, has a clean and simplified interface, specifically designed for code review. Its focused approach allows reviewers to quickly navigate through changes and provide feedback, resulting in a smoother review process.
Code review process: GitHub offers a comprehensive but relatively static code review process. Developers create pull requests, reviewers leave comments and suggestions, and changes are made based on that feedback. Reviewable provides a more dynamic code review process, allowing reviewers to leave line-level comments directly in the code and have discussions with other reviewers and the author. This promotes a more interactive and collaborative review process.
Integration with other tools: GitHub has a vast ecosystem of integrations with external tools and services. It seamlessly integrates with continuous integration and deployment systems, project management tools, documentation platforms, and more. Reviewable, while primarily focused on code review, can also integrate with these tools but to a lesser extent. It offers integrations with popular task tracking and project management tools, ensuring a smooth workflow.
Pricing and licensing: GitHub offers both free and paid plans, catering to both individual developers and organizations. The free plan allows for public repositories and limited features, while the paid plans provide more advanced features, increased storage, and options for private repositories. Reviewable also offers free and paid plans, but it specifically targets organizations and teams. Its paid plans provide additional features like team management, advanced analytics, and priority support.
Customization and extensibility: GitHub allows developers to create custom workflows, automate processes with GitHub Actions, and customize the platform to their specific needs. It also offers APIs for integrating with external tools and extending its capabilities. Reviewable, while offering some customization options, is more focused on providing a streamlined code review experience. It prioritizes ease-of-use over extensive customization possibilities.
In summary, while both GitHub and Reviewable cater to the code review and collaboration needs of developers, GitHub offers a more comprehensive platform for managing code repositories and project workflows, whereas Reviewable provides a focused and streamlined interface specifically designed for code review.
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 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 GitHub
- Open source friendly1.8K
- Easy source control1.5K
- Nice UI1.3K
- Great for team collaboration1.1K
- Easy setup868
- Issue tracker504
- Great community488
- Remote team collaboration483
- Great way to share449
- Pull request and features planning442
- Just works147
- Integrated in many tools132
- Free Public Repos122
- Github Gists116
- Github pages114
- Easy to find repos83
- Open source62
- Easy to find projects60
- It's free60
- Network effect56
- Extensive API49
- Organizations43
- Branching42
- Developer Profiles34
- Git Powered Wikis32
- Great for collaboration30
- It's fun24
- Clean interface and good integrations23
- Community SDK involvement22
- Learn from others source code20
- Because: Git16
- It integrates directly with Azure14
- Standard in Open Source collab10
- Newsfeed10
- Fast8
- Beautiful user experience8
- It integrates directly with Hipchat8
- Easy to discover new code libraries7
- It's awesome6
- Smooth integration6
- Cloud SCM6
- Nice API6
- Graphs6
- Integrations6
- Hands down best online Git service available5
- Reliable5
- Quick Onboarding5
- CI Integration5
- Remarkable uptime5
- Security options4
- Loved by developers4
- Uses GIT4
- Free HTML hosting4
- Easy to use and collaborate with others4
- Version Control4
- Simple but powerful4
- Unlimited Public Repos at no cost4
- Nice to use3
- IAM3
- Ci3
- Easy deployment via SSH3
- Free private repos2
- Good tools support2
- All in one development service2
- Never dethroned2
- Easy source control and everything is backed up2
- Issues tracker2
- Self Hosted2
- IAM integration2
- Very Easy to Use2
- Easy to use2
- Leads the copycats2
- Free HTML hostings2
- Easy and efficient maintainance of the projects2
- Beautiful2
- Dasf1
- Profound1
Pros of Reviewable
- Batch commenting5
- Makes me feel organised and in control4
- Easy to use4
- Easy incremental reviewing3
- Efficient comment paging3
- Manual review of c c++ in eclipse and c# code in vs1
- Language agnostic1
- Focused on code reviews1
- Free for OSS1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of GitHub
- Owned by micrcosoft56
- Expensive for lone developers that want private repos38
- Relatively slow product/feature release cadence15
- API scoping could be better10
- Only 3 collaborators for private repos9
- Limited featureset for issue management4
- Does not have a graph for showing history like git lens3
- GitHub Packages does not support SNAPSHOT versions2
- Expensive1
- No multilingual interface1
- Horrible review comments tracking (absence)1
- Takes a long time to commit1