Here's why I'm excited about this: Data Versioning<p>Github is awesome for science. But my code and workflows often are just as reliant on the data I have as the code I've written. With Github, I always have to treat my data separately. A different workflow, a different storage location, different (and often manual) versioning.<p>Now, I can start integrating my data into the same workflow. No size limits. Just drop it in and version it like everything else. 1GB? No problem. 500GB? Just pay the money.<p>This is especially awesome because, as a scientist/dev, I do not want to stand up my own infrastructure and servers/vms. I don't want to do linux updates. I don't want to worry about things going down. It just needs to be there when I need it. When I don't need it anymore, I'll take it down. Done and done.
I've thought about building GitHub / BitBucket tools (issue management, pull requests etc) that work with data stored in git repositories, as opposed to one big tool that owns the git repository and manages the data in a locked-up SQL database. We already have this for code browsers (e.g. cgit), but that alone can't compete with the "full suite" that others offer.<p>It would have several advantages for the user:<p>1) You could pick your issue management separately from your code browser<p>2) You don't have to worry that the best tooling (Github) has some of the least reliable storage.<p>3) If it stored the data in git, it would work offline!<p>The big downside is that having to "assemble your own" is more complicated for the user, and that it isn't Github/BitBucket's business model...
To me, it looks like the biggest advantage over existing solutions is point 4: "Faster Development Lifecycle." If you're running all your infrastructure out of an AWS datacenter anyway moving your source control servers into the same center will make checkouts in automated deploys marginally faster.
Bezos to kids being born 3 years from now. "You kids are just features. Keep n eye on our announcements page."<p>It's interesting how they seem to be adding all the stuff in the workflow that we are okay with just being good enough and don't benefit from bells and whistles. Github is very cool for managing an open source project, but for my own stuff just about anything which makes managing my repos relatively simple and saves me a bit of time is fine. I don't need much for an interface or features. Just being able to push a button and having a hosted repo ready for other users and with instructions for less technical contributors is awesome.<p>If I'm already on Github, I'm probably staying there. Competition is good though. Competition will push Github to continue doing more to differentiate themselves as being something much greater than simply hosting Git repo's.
Strange use of "git-based" wording. Do I understand correctly, they implemented their own git command line binaries that you install to replace the original git binaries? Possibly a fork of git client and server?
Though many won't see any sort of advantage to switching, it would be very interesting to know what kind of effect this has on both Github and Bitbucket. There doesn't seem to be any major drawcard that will have people chomping at the bit to change over that I can see. I'm happy to be enlightened though.<p>On another note, is it just me or has Amazon really been ramping up with their releases lately? It feels like there is something new each week at the moment.
Competition is good, so I say hooray for this.<p>That said, doesn't seem to offer a compelling alternative to Github, based on what they're currently saying. There could be value in tight integration with other Amazon tools, but that seems like it'll come more from intentional lock-in than added value.
Off topic, but the sign up process is very bad. Why do they need full name, email, company name, role, address, phone number, catcha, etc to just sign up for more information?
>Worry about scaling your own infrastructure<p>Does git have scaling issues? I know git manages the 60mil+ SLOC of the Linux Kernel, that's what it was designed for.<p>I don't see how even medium/large size enterprise will have difficulty. Or am I missing something?
I recommend Gitlab for anyone looking for something Github-like. On a $10/m DO instance you can be up and running quickly [1]. There's a rake task for backups and it's easy to get it to sync to S3.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-use-the-gitlab-one-click-install-image-to-manage-git-repositories" rel="nofollow">https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-use-...</a>
Interesting. I recently started mixing GitHub and S3 for blog content and it's a pain in the ass. Asking the internet about pushing GitHub content to S3 results in just a bunch of mediocre scripts. I like it.<p>I also look forward to Perforce's response. For versioned binary files Perforce is still the best. Competition, hooray!
You mean to tell me I just spent a day last week setting up Jenkins, GitHub and a VM when I could've waited for my second week on the job and move it all to Amazon?<p>That aside.. This looks great. If I'm not fully satisfied with my setup (right now I'm not) I might make the move to this. Lower friction is always welcome
If they can integrate gitolite into this and make a breeze to set up, then that would be awesome.<p>If they use custom permissions ( directly tied to IAM ), then it would be another closed solution like github.
Not to be a negative Nelly or anything, but with the speed at which Amazon is releasing this stuff, they are going to have to be a Google eventually and pull the rug out from under our feet, discontinuing several products.
Uggh no way. The AWS Web Console is a beastly enough UI to get around, I have no interest in migrating away from the very comfortable, friendly Github interface.
I still have trouble trusting a company which I primarily know as "that all-round webshop" to get involved withy my tech stack. It feels as-if McDonalds would over night offer server infrastructure and get away with it.