Selecting the right version control system is crucial for efficient software development and deployment. AWS CodeCommit and CodePipeline offer a robust, cloud-native solution integrated with the AWS ecosystem, providing seamless version control and automated pipeline capabilities. Alternatively, GitLab's comprehensive suite extends beyond basic version control to encompass many DevOps tools, offering a more cohesive and feature-rich platform for modern development teams. As a Lead Software Developer for Xennial Innovations, I continually choose to use GitLab over other programs. I want to share my experience, discuss both systems' pros and cons, and highlight why GitLab is the better choice for streamlining development processes. 

‍
 
For those of you reading this and asking yourself, "What is CodeCommit?" AWS CodeCommit is part of the larger AWS ecosystem, with several advantages for teams deeply integrated with Amazon Web Services. It provides a secure and fully managed source control service that supports Git repositories. CodePipeline, meanwhile, allows for the automation of CI/CD, enabling the rapid release of application updates. The seamless integration with other AWS services like Lambda, ECS, and CloudFormation allows for a streamlined DevOps workflow. However, this reliance on the AWS ecosystem can be a double-edged sword, potentially limiting flexibility and increasing dependency on a single cloud provider. Additionally, while powerful, CodeCommit and CodePipeline may require a steeper learning curve for teams that aren't very familiar with AWS. It's important to note that CodeCommit also has some limitations, such as the inability to leave multi-line comments for more detailed feedback when reviewing a PR, the lack of a history of changes in the codebase, and the inability to attach media to PRs, which can hinder the development process.  

‍
 
In contrast, GitLab offers a more holistic and versatile platform. It includes built-in CI/CD pipelines, project management tools, and robust security and compliance features, enabling end-to-end software development and deployment within a single interface. Its open-source nature allows extensive customization, empowering organizations to tailor the platform to their needs. The self-hosting option provides control over data governance, making it ideal for organizations with strict compliance requirements, as we've seen with our customers in Canada and their data residency rules. GitLab's support for multiple cloud environments and integration with various third-party tools offer greater flexibility and adaptability. These attributes position GitLab as the preferred solution to unify development processes under a powerful, cohesive platform. 

‍
 
I've had the opportunity to work with both version control systems. I've found a lot of pain points in working with CodeCommit, which is in contrast to my experience with GitLab. From a developer standpoint, here are some bad experiences I've encountered with CodeCommit: 
‍

• Code reviews are a very important aspect of the software development lifecycle. Using CodeCommit, you can't leave multi-line comments for more detailed feedback when reviewing a PR

• If you leave a comment on a single line, once the code gets changed, you can no longer view the comment in the "Changes" tab; it's only available via the "Activity" tab, where you have no history of what's been changed

• If you're used to using a template when creating the PR, you'll be unpleasantly surprised by CodeCommit's inability to have PR templates. Our team has had to copy-paste our template on each PR, which isn't ideal. Our full-stack team works on a lot of front-end tickets. When creating a front-end PR, we cannot attach screenshots to show what's been changed or attach any media at all to our PRs

‍
 
These are just some of the negatives I've noticed with CodeCommit, all of which are resolved by GitLab. GitLab allows for PR templates, multi-line comments with a history of the changes in the codebase, as well as being able to add screenshots and other media to PRs. These enhancements further streamline the development process and improve collaboration among team members. GitLab allows for quickly setting up PR blocks if a build fails or if any tests fail. Using CodeCommit and CodePipeline, there is no intuitive way to block a PR; you must create an IAM user specifically for the intent of blocking/approving PRs.  

‍
 
Configuring pipelines with CodePipeline can be quite unintuitive and time-consuming. Currently, with CodePipeline, you can only have one appspec.yml per project, which doesn't allow support for monorepos. The appspec.yml is a YAML/JSON formatted file used to manage a deployment using CodeDeploy triggered by a CodePipeline. For a monorepo, you'd need to have an appspec.yml file per project; however, with CodeCommit, you can only have one per repo. GitLab lifts this restriction and allows for monorepo architectures. GitLab would also allow parent-child pipelines for the monorepo to have a pipeline and let the child-specific pipelines run only when there is a change in the specific child.  

‍
 
Creating sharable pipelines is easy using GitLab and allows for cross-team collaboration. This would enable new teams/projects to have some standardized/base pipelines to use for build/test/deploy pipelines across different environments (dev/uat/prod) without requiring each team to create their pipelines. Maintaining a standard CI/CD pipeline across various projects within the same company is beneficial. GitLab's capabilities to easily fork pipelines, utilize templates, and share configurations within the same platform can significantly save time and reduce complexity. It also allows for ease of use with third-party tools, such as Lighthouse, SonarQube, etc., in pipelines.  

‍
 
As GitLab is more widespread, it has more extensive community support. This means that if you have any issues, you'll likely be able to find a solution quickly. Also, if you're the first to encounter an issue, the large community will quickly find a solution to your problem. This robust community support can provide reassurance and a sense of being part of a larger network. On the other hand, CodeCommit has limited forums with neglected posts offering zero solutions.

 
 
Ultimately, GitLab's extensive features and ease of use provide a more cohesive and powerful platform. It enables development teams to collaborate effectively and deliver high-quality software faster. Though GitLab may be more expensive than CodeCommit, its value is unmatched. Whether you're a startup or a large enterprise, GitLab's comprehensive suite can help you achieve DevOps excellence. Its user-friendly interface and rich feature set make it a compelling alternative to AWS CodeCommit and CodePipeline. Also, I've heard that 4/5 architects prefer GitLab... and the other 1/5 work at AWS...

‍

TLDR:

‍