2 ms·
For those that don't follow Git hosting, it may not be obvious, but GitHub's mind share, is truly massive. If you want to compete head to head with GitHub, you'
by sdesol 10y ago
For those that don't follow Git hosting, it may not be obvious, but GitHub's mind share, is truly massive. If you want to compete head to head with GitHub, you'll basically, have to wait for them to REALLY screw up. If you want any sort of chance, you'll have to approach things, from a totally different angle.
Make code reviews your number one priority. Be the place that people want to put their code in, because they can review code, significantly easier on your site, as opposed to GitHub's. Make management your number one priority. Be the place that can provide managers with code metrics and analytics, that GitHub can't. And so on.
To take mind share away from GitHub, you'll have to treat Git hosting, as a secondary thing. You can't be a derivative of GitHub and expect to compete, and succeed. Like Snapchat, Instagram (before acquisition) and others, you can only compete with Facebook, from a completely different angle.
If you can provide a novel solution, that cannot be easily duplicated by GitHub and others, getting users to store code with you, will be significantly easier. With GitLab, Gitea, Gogs, etc., Git hosting has turned into a commodity product, which means you'll need to focus on providing value based on the code stored and not the management of the code.
- uiri 10y agoMake code reviews your number one priority. Be the place that people want to put their code in, because they can review code, significantly easier on your site, as opposed to GitHub's. This isn't really a high bar. Doing more than one iteration of code review with GitHub's tooling is a complete mess. In addition to that, both PR comments and Commit comments exist which can be extremely confusing if you do make one when you meant to make the other. There is already other tooling which leverage GitHub's APIs to provide a nicer interface for code review.
- yoz-y 10y agoCare to share which one?
- amatix 10y agohttps://reviewable.io https://reviewable.io is a good upgrade from regular GitHub reviews
- uiri 10y agoReviewable.io is the one which I was thinking of. GitHub provides a list: https://github.com/integrations/feature/code-review https://github.com/integrations/feature/code-review I don't think that that is an exhaustive list; for instance GerritHub is missing (although I'm not a fan of it).
- jacekmaterna 10y agoY. Has anyone actually tried running a complex enterprise pipeline via github. What you will find is the almost exclusively everyone ties github to a "project platform" like JIRA, Assembla, Pivotal, etc. Github is a repo hosting tool with just enough to support collaboration. Shipping, testing prod code 100% in github is very rare. I do think the comments and PR similarity is a challenge yeah - where to comment?
- quanticle 10y agoMake management your number one priority. Be the place that can provide managers with code metrics and analytics, that GitHub can't. That seems to be Microsoft's approach with Visual Studio Team Services. Whereas Github seems to be focused on code, VSTS is more focused on integrating every step of software development, with version control, work item tracking, continuous integration, etc, all living in one integrated package. Now, this means that the version control aspect of it isn't as good as that of Github's. But, the issue tracking is far superior, and you don't really need to invest in learning separate software (like Travis or Jenkins, or what-have-you) in order to get continuous integration working.
- jacekmaterna 10y agoLet's not forget that Git is not the only VCS - if you're doing only text files great!