Likelihood to Recommend Assembla works well when you are working with multiple groups or entities. We dealt with different time zones, different levels of involvement with the projects, etc so this allows for us to have responses back in a quicker fashion. It also helps us clue in the appropriate people and rely less on following multiple email chains
Read full review GIT is good to be used for faster and high availability operations during code release cycle. Git provides a complete replica of the repository on the developer's local system which is why every developer will have complete repository available for quick access on his system and they can merge the specific branches that they have worked on back to the centralized repository. The limitations with GIT are seen when checking in large files.
Read full review Pros Assembla assists in the workload balancing of our programmers. We are able to use Assembla to manage sprints and sprint planning in our agile format. Read full review Ability to create branches off current releases to modify code that can be tested in a separate environment. Each developer had their own local copy of branches so it minimizes mistakes being made. Has a user-friendly UI called Git Gui that users can use if they do not like using the command line. Conflicts are displayed nicely so that developers can resolve with ease. Read full review Cons The ability to export the tasks or run metrics on them. Mobile ability. Read full review There can be quite a number of commands once you get to the advanced features and functionality of Git. Takes time to master. Doesn't handle static assets (ie: videos, images, etc.) well. Although in the recent years, new functionality has been introduced to address this. Many different GUIs, many people (including myself) opt to just use the command-line. Read full review Likelihood to Renew Git has met all standards for a source control tool and even exceeded those standards. Git is so integrated with our work that I can't imagine a day without it.
Read full review Usability Git is easy to use most of the time. You mostly use a few commands like commiting, fetch/pull, and push which will get you by for most of time.
Read full review Support Rating I am not sure what the official Git support channels are like as I have never needed to use any official support. Because Git is so popular among all developers now, it is pretty easy to find the answer to almost any Git question with a quick Google search. I've never had trouble finding what I'm looking for.
Nate Dillon Front-End Web Developer, Office of Mediated Education
Read full review Implementation Rating It's easy to set up and get going.
Read full review Alternatives Considered We selected Assembla because the ticket functionality worked well with our agile planning format that we use company wide.
Read full review I've used both
Apache Subversion & Git over the years and have maintained my allegiance to Git. Git is not objectively better than Subversion. It's different.
The key difference is that it is decentralized. With Subversion, you have a problem here: The SVN Repository may be in a location you can't reach (behind a VPN, intranet - etc), you cannot commit. If you want to make a copy of your code, you have to literally copy/paste it. With Git, you do not have this problem. Your local copy is a repository, and you can commit to it and get all benefits of source control. When you regain connectivity to the main repository, you can commit against it. Another thing for consideration is that Git tracks content rather than files. Branches are lightweight and merging is easy, and I mean really easy.
It's distributed, basically every repository is a branch. It's much easier to develop concurrently and collaboratively than with Subversion, in my opinion. It also makes offline development possible. It doesn't impose any workflow, as seen on the above linked website, there are many workflows possible with Git. A Subversion-style workflow is easily mimicked.
Read full review Return on Investment We were able to spend less time tracking down the status of projects. We could become more self-sufficient on reviewing prior resolutions to help with current problems. Tasks were responded to quickly because we did not have to email one person, wait for an out of office email and then try someone else. Our task got assigned to the next available person. Read full review Git has saved our organization countless hours having to manually trace code to a breaking change or manage conflicting changes. It has no equal when it comes to scalability or manageability. Git has allowed our engineering team to build code reviews into its workflow by preventing a developer from approving or merging in their own code; instead, all proposed changes are reviewed by another engineer to assess the impact of the code and whether or not it should be merged in first. This greatly reduces the likelihood of breaking changes getting into production. Git has at times created some confusion among developers about what to do if they accidentally commit a change they decide later they want to roll back. There are multiple ways to address this problem and the best available option may not be obvious in all cases. Read full review ScreenShots