7 ms·

AWS Code Commit Ceased Onboarding New Customers

142 points by kevinslin 2y ago

upon_drumhead 2y ago
I once had high hopes Amazon would be able to build a real GitHub competitor. It's a real shame Amazon doesn't seem to be able to build anything that reaches beyond their walled garden.
- paulmendoza 2y ago
  CodePipeline is another good example of just horrible user experience. You need a lot of hours of training to figure out all the different permissions required to get it all to work. It is a mess. I use GitHub Codespaces now for much of my deployment automation. Codebuild is also a real pain.
  - surfingdino 2y ago
    Permissions are the bane of my AWS experience. Once you figure them out it's simple, but finding what you need in their docs is difficult.
- nunez 2y ago
  I never NOT thought that CodeCommit and CodePipeline were box checks for strategic AWS customers
  - gavindean90 2y ago
    Can you describe more of what you mean
    - teractiveodular 2y ago
      A lot of cloud providers release hastily built and generally cruddy services whose sole purpose in life is to satisfy the question "does your cloud have X" when customers are doing does-it-tick-the-box comparisons across clouds.
- paulddraper 2y ago
  Hope unjustified. AWS can build low level solutions -- EC2, EBS, S3. High level stuff is garbage.
  - gonzo41 2y ago
    Everyone's and I mean everyone's high level stuff is garbage. Remember when Lotus Notes was the peak. The only thing constant is change etc.
    - grobbyy 2y ago
      Amazon has a uniquely large spread, in that case. I use S3, EC2, Route 53, and RDS. That's more or less it. I advise others to do likewise. Not the same set, mind you, but the same mindset.
    - paulddraper 2y ago
      GitHub is good, yes? And Excel? And Notion? And Datadog? Lots of companies with excellent user friendly products. GCP is good in that regard too, minus IAM.
      - ptdorf 2y ago
        > GCP is good in that regard too, minus IAM. Care to elaborate why? IMO, GCP's IAM is years ahead of say AWS.
        paulddraper 2y ago
        I don't think GCP IAM is approachable to the degree that it's other services are. (Better than AWS? Sure.) A hundreds different "Admin" roles, a bunch of OAuth client stuff, other weird settings. It's a fundamentally hard problem, but I don't think GCP solved it in an approachable/user-friendly way, which is the topic.
        robohoe 2y ago
        I second that. It's honestly simple. You assign roles (bundling of individual API call permissions) to cloud identities to resources.
- whazor 2y ago
  They did: https://codecatalyst.aws/ https://codecatalyst.aws/
- jeffwask 2y ago
  I've tried all of these tools over the last few years as part of vendor due diligence and none of them impressed me. Code Deploy is probably the best of the bunch and it's really just a very opinionated deployment tool that only works on specific use cases well.
duttonw 2y ago
Not surprising the ui is not very friendly and getting code in and out when you are not inside the AWS walled garden (need AWS keys) really restricted it
- teraflop 2y ago
  Speaking of unfriendly, I learned recently that unlike S3 buckets, CodeCommit repository URLs are/were not globally unique. That is, something like: git clone https://git-codecommit.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/v1/repos/foobar clones a repository named "foobar" in the namespace of the currently logged-in user. So it can give you completely different results with different credentials.
simonw 2y ago
> If you would like to use an alternative to AWS CodeCommit given this news, we recommend using GitLab, GitHub, or another third party source provider of your choice. We have written a blog which describes how to migrate your repository to one of these other solutions. I found that blog post: "How to migrate your AWS CodeCommit repository to another Git provider" from 25th July 2024 https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/devops/how-to-migrate-your-aws-codecommit-repository-to-another-git-provider/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/devops/how-to-migrate-your-aws-... I wonder how long AWS will keep Code Commit running for their customers who are already using it? I'm guessing many, many years. Weird that there's no announcement anywhere (that I can find) about CodeCommit ceasing to onboard new customers. Apparently it happened on June 6th but this forum post from July 26th is the only thing that comes up in search.
bugsense 2y ago
Gitlab acquisition imminent?
- sluongng 2y ago
  Would be surprised if FTC is allowing that.
  - adobrawy 2y ago
    FTC allowed to acquire GitHub by Microsoft...
    - cpitman 2y ago
      That was a very different enforcement regime.
- carlsborg 2y ago
  Would make sense. Good fit.
denysvitali 2y ago
It's still fun how their proposed solution for using on-prem Bitbucket Server with CodePipeline works: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/devops/integrating-codepipeline-with-on-premises-bitbucket-server/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/devops/integrating-codepipeline... To me it looks like a huge hack (download your code as a zip file just to upload it to CodePipeline) rather than a solution - I'll not be surprised to discover other migtations to look similarly
coding123 2y ago
Every AWS feature requires some stupid aws cli call that gives you 12 hours of usage. So every day depending on how many products you're using, you have stupid shit to run. Was codecommit like that
- __alexs 2y ago
  The timeout is configurable.
  - watermelon0 2y ago
    It's configurable, but outside of having an IAM users with long-term IAM credentials (which is not ideal security-wise), sessions can be max 12 hours long.
- camtarn 2y ago
  No. You could either set it up with SSH or HTTPS credentials (managed via IAM Console or CLI) or use the AWS CLI's credential helper that managed everything automatically. The credential helper was a little weird to set up the first time I used it, but once I wrote up the instructions it was easy enough. Honestly I've never come across the '12 hours of usage' thing for AWS. But I only use CodeCommit, EC2, S3, SNS, SES, and other low-level services.
  - ChadyWady 2y ago
    The "12 hours" comes from IAM roles... some organizations don't allow folks to use IAM users for security reasons; many are now swapping to a setup like IAM Identity Center where they are granted temporary AWS credentials for an IAM role using an SSO provider.
GardenLetter27 2y ago
It was never great anyway, although I wonder how they will handle some of the AWS stuff that would use it by default (automatically deploying private Lambdas, etc. IIRC).
simonw 2y ago
In writing this up - https://simonwillison.net/2024/Jul/30/aws-codecommit-quietly-deprecated/ https://simonwillison.net/2024/Jul/30/aws-codecommit-quietly... - I found out about a much more significant deprecation: Amazon QLDB (Quantum Ledger Database - a blockchain-ish thing they launched in GA in 2019) is being hard-deprecated too! They're shutting it down completely on 31st July 2025, having announced the shutdown a few weeks ago (on July 18th). QLDB shutdown announcement in the release notes: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/qldb/latest/developerguide/document-history.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/qldb/latest/developerguide/docum... Their blog post about how to rewrite QLDB apps to use Aurora PostgreSQL instead: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/database/migrate-an-amazon-qldb-ledger-to-amazon-aurora-postgresql/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/database/migrate-an-amazon-qldb... Hacker News discussion from when QLDB was first announced in 2018: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18553387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18553387 I also found this handy community GitHub repo which tracks these breaking AWS changes and lets you subscribe to them via an Atom feed: https://github.com/SummitRoute/aws_breaking_changes https://github.com/SummitRoute/aws_breaking_changes
- formerly_proven 2y ago
  > Their blog post about how to rewrite QLDB apps to use Aurora PostgreSQL instead Straight callback to all the "you don't need a blockchain, you just need a database".
  - arianvanp 2y ago
    It wasn't a blockchain per se. It basically was Amazon's Version of Rich Hickey's Datomic and them pointing people to Aurora for Migration is a bit of a joke. It's a completely different product. QLDB is an immutable database with allowing you to move back and forward in history and do live streaming of events etc with cryptographic verification built in. You _can_ set up Postgres like this but it's a lot of hoops and not very user friendly (some monstrosity involving DMS, Kinesis Firehose and what not).
    - kfrzcode 2y ago
      This makes me wonder if Hedera Hashgraph can support this use case...
viccis 2y ago
Not surprised. CodeCommit was released alongside a stable of other mediocre tools for CI/CD (CodePipeline and CodeDeploy if I recall correctly) that reflected the pinnacle of AWS's mid-to-late 2010s attitude, which is to find something popular and offer an incredibly mediocre alternative to it that will still be used by those teams who want to move as much as possible to AWS. Seems like that stalled out a bit, mostly due to it being so insanely bad that even the most dedicated AWS fanatics didn't bite. I feel like a lot of the recent stuff is just drop-in replacement AWS alternatives to popular tools (like Kafka and Cassandra) with outrageous price tags.
- vasco 2y ago
  Doesn't it reflect more on the quality of the people involved? These tools came out at the same time as a bunch of other AWS tools that are still used. The platform itself, the company around these teams was the same, so why did Code Commit suck but other AWS products from the same vintage turned out great?
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    You’ve never been part of a large organization have you? I have a little insight on how things like CodeCommit fall behind the competition. I worked at AWS in the Professional Services division. For a little over two years I was on a makeshift team maintaining and improving a very popular open source project in its niche. The project was hosted on “AWS Samples” (https://github.com/aws-samples https://github.com/aws-samples). Once approved for the initial release of a project in this Github organization, there is no oversite on updates. In my experience from releasing 8 of my own projects to the repository, it takes about two days to get the initial approval and it’s really based on the honor system as far as following the guidelines after that. We released features and improvements like gangbusters based on customer demand or if we just wanted to scratch an itch. Then, it became popular enough to be promoted from “AWS Samples” to an “AWS Solution” (https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/ https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/). Everything slowed to a crawl, releases, approval processes, you had to justify everything you wanted to add based on revenue potential, everything had to be approved by higher ups. We were the sane developers. I dropped out of the project then. But I saw the storm coming, so my last major contribution before it got transitioned was to introduce “hooks” functionality that allowed you to change the processing pipeline by adding a custom lambda arn to it in settings. Before it became a “solution” former AWS employees who use to work on the project who were still in the industry would make changes and submit pull requests that we would merge. But back to CodeCommit, can you imagine how hard it is to convince senior leadership to give you funding for a service that neither gives you a competitive advantage nor is a revenue generator? Hell they just added support for viewing images inline in markdown from the console this year.
irjustin 2y ago
I never did liked CodeCommit after testing it about 2 years ago. Just felt like an afterthought. They better not touch CodePipeline and CodeDeploy though.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
AWS had and probably still has the least interesting and immature way of investing in new products of any organization with the resources it has. Apart from the early wave of AWS products virtually everything has been a dud. There are so many random AWS products that are live but basically dead because Amazon/AWS never invested enough into them. Totally predictable outcome. I’m not sure why Bezos made Andy Jassy CEO.
- ChadyWady 2y ago
  Their business models has always been basically MS's strategy: Build out a massive sales and consulting organization, and then build products so that sales people can generate feature matrices to compare themselves with the competition. I'm certain they're keenly aware that they build shit products -- but they know that the majority of their customers are willing to pay a premium for a worse product if it means avoiding talking to finance and ensuring compliance for any external vendor.
rohansood15 2y ago
While this isn't surprising considering how bad it was, it is surprising considering that they recently announced the whole Amazon Q for software development thing. Who's going to trust them with Dev tooling now?
donw 2y ago
Cue rebrand to “AWS Code Freeze”.
genericacct 2y ago
Hoping they never disable cloud9 for my account
ThinkBeat 2y ago
AWS CodePipeline + CodeDeploy are horrors¹ from what I saw at a client. They had mandated .Net + Javascript for all development, GitHub for versioning, and AWS for all other cloud services. The different projects they had going were not complex or huge. Yet it took months to get it up and running. The last month at least they paid for AWS specialists to come in and set it up and even they spent weeks. Throughout it all, any notion of trying a different CI/CD stack were rudely dismissed. Once it was up and running nobody dared touch the pipeline again. From all the AWS services that the customer used nothing was ever comparable to the horrors of their CI/CD. Setting it up with Azure's offerings would have been damned near trivial. I have however not used those in production so I do not have the experience to able to say it is a better solution over all. ¹ In fairness, AWS had just recently released the CI/CD offerings and things may be a lot better now. I havent look at it again since then.
kjfarm 2y ago
Are they shutting down CodeCatalyst as well? Or are they just forcing new customers over to CodeCatalyst? It’s weird (for Amazon) they recommend Github and Gitlab over an AWS alternative if they are shifting people over to CodeCatalyst
belter 2y ago
This is very bad, and the silent deprecation of Amazon QLDB even more shocking. It looks like at AWS the MBA's are fully in charge... Many in this thread commenting on CodeCommit not being GitHub or GitLab are missing the point. I don't want to have my companies code with GitHub/Microsoft and being used to train their AI. Also don't want to have to rely on a third party like GitLab, that is a company who makes no money, and whose losses are $55 million dollars a quarter, and has shaky internal technical governance. Did not forget about their Prod database one man setup.... I don't care about the lack of features of CodeCommit. It's usefulness was essentially providing a managed git server. Did not need more, but needed it as a managed server in the AWS Cloud. The alternatives now will be the third parties, or the additional effort of running EC2 instances and managing the resilience and architecture. This does not predict a good future for tools like Amazon CodeGuru Reviewer for Java and Python, CodeArtifact, CodePipeline and CodeBuild. And even if these plus QLDB were probably money losers for AWS, the MBA's are missing the point. I would not be surprised if these silent decisions, are not reversed shortly, or if the service is just kept forever as is, but not deprecated. Edit: Just found this "AWS breaking changes and price increases" - https://github.com/SummitRoute/aws_breaking_changes?tab=readme-ov-file https://github.com/SummitRoute/aws_breaking_changes?tab=read... Don't know what is going on but now also Cloud9 seems to have a shaky future? Not on-boarding new customers? AMZN Earnings Release is next Thursday after market close. https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/amzn/earnings https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/amzn/earnings I am going to listen to that earnings call, very carefully....
frikkie444 2y ago
The worst thing about CodeCommit is that repo URLs are not unique, Depending on the AWS account you log in to, you can have a different repo with the same url. Second worst thing is that it basically refuses to show a diff for any file longer than a few lines. Third worst thing is you need a login helper and special generated credential to create a login. Fourth worst thing is the absolute slowness of it. Good riddance.
kennu 2y ago
Very disappointing. CodeCommit had value in its APIs for managing and accessing Git repositories programmatically e.g. from Lambda functions. I've used it to implement simple, Git-compatible version control in some projects by calling the PutFile API. Now it will be much more complicated to achieve something similar.
nyarlathotep_ 2y ago
AWS is now pathologically focused on the GenAI services they're shilling. Services like this fall to the wayside.
skywhopper 2y ago
This link doesn’t appear to have that information. It’s just an unanswered question about being unable to create CodeCommit repos. Is there an actual announcement somewhere?

142 points by kevinslin 2y ago

I once had high hopes Amazon would be able to build a real GitHub competitor. It's a real shame Amazon doesn't seem to be able to build anything that reaches beyond their walled garden.

paulmendoza 2y ago
CodePipeline is another good example of just horrible user experience. You need a lot of hours of training to figure out all the different permissions required to get it all to work. It is a mess. I use GitHub Codespaces now for much of my deployment automation. Codebuild is also a real pain.
- surfingdino 2y ago
  Permissions are the bane of my AWS experience. Once you figure them out it's simple, but finding what you need in their docs is difficult.
nunez 2y ago
I never NOT thought that CodeCommit and CodePipeline were box checks for strategic AWS customers
- gavindean90 2y ago
  Can you describe more of what you mean
  - teractiveodular 2y ago
    A lot of cloud providers release hastily built and generally cruddy services whose sole purpose in life is to satisfy the question "does your cloud have X" when customers are doing does-it-tick-the-box comparisons across clouds.
paulddraper 2y ago
Hope unjustified. AWS can build low level solutions -- EC2, EBS, S3. High level stuff is garbage.
- gonzo41 2y ago
  Everyone's and I mean everyone's high level stuff is garbage. Remember when Lotus Notes was the peak. The only thing constant is change etc.
  - grobbyy 2y ago
    Amazon has a uniquely large spread, in that case. I use S3, EC2, Route 53, and RDS. That's more or less it. I advise others to do likewise. Not the same set, mind you, but the same mindset.
  - paulddraper 2y ago
    GitHub is good, yes? And Excel? And Notion? And Datadog? Lots of companies with excellent user friendly products. GCP is good in that regard too, minus IAM.
    - ptdorf 2y ago
      > GCP is good in that regard too, minus IAM. Care to elaborate why? IMO, GCP's IAM is years ahead of say AWS.
      - paulddraper 2y ago
        I don't think GCP IAM is approachable to the degree that it's other services are. (Better than AWS? Sure.) A hundreds different "Admin" roles, a bunch of OAuth client stuff, other weird settings. It's a fundamentally hard problem, but I don't think GCP solved it in an approachable/user-friendly way, which is the topic.
      - robohoe 2y ago
        I second that. It's honestly simple. You assign roles (bundling of individual API call permissions) to cloud identities to resources.
whazor 2y ago
They did: https://codecatalyst.aws/ https://codecatalyst.aws/
jeffwask 2y ago
I've tried all of these tools over the last few years as part of vendor due diligence and none of them impressed me. Code Deploy is probably the best of the bunch and it's really just a very opinionated deployment tool that only works on specific use cases well.

duttonw 2y ago

Not surprising the ui is not very friendly and getting code in and out when you are not inside the AWS walled garden (need AWS keys) really restricted it

teraflop 2y ago
Speaking of unfriendly, I learned recently that unlike S3 buckets, CodeCommit repository URLs are/were not globally unique. That is, something like: git clone https://git-codecommit.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/v1/repos/foobar clones a repository named "foobar" in the namespace of the currently logged-in user. So it can give you completely different results with different credentials.

simonw 2y ago

> If you would like to use an alternative to AWS CodeCommit given this news, we recommend using GitLab, GitHub, or another third party source provider of your choice. We have written a blog which describes how to migrate your repository to one of these other solutions. I found that blog post: "How to migrate your AWS CodeCommit repository to another Git provider" from 25th July 2024 https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/devops/how-to-migrate-your-aws-codecommit-repository-to-another-git-provider/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/devops/how-to-migrate-your-aws-... I wonder how long AWS will keep Code Commit running for their customers who are already using it? I'm guessing many, many years. Weird that there's no announcement anywhere (that I can find) about CodeCommit ceasing to onboard new customers. Apparently it happened on June 6th but this forum post from July 26th is the only thing that comes up in search.

bugsense 2y ago

Gitlab acquisition imminent?

sluongng 2y ago
Would be surprised if FTC is allowing that.
- adobrawy 2y ago
  FTC allowed to acquire GitHub by Microsoft...
  - cpitman 2y ago
    That was a very different enforcement regime.
carlsborg 2y ago
Would make sense. Good fit.

denysvitali 2y ago

It's still fun how their proposed solution for using on-prem Bitbucket Server with CodePipeline works: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/devops/integrating-codepipeline-with-on-premises-bitbucket-server/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/devops/integrating-codepipeline... To me it looks like a huge hack (download your code as a zip file just to upload it to CodePipeline) rather than a solution - I'll not be surprised to discover other migtations to look similarly

coding123 2y ago

Every AWS feature requires some stupid aws cli call that gives you 12 hours of usage. So every day depending on how many products you're using, you have stupid shit to run. Was codecommit like that

__alexs 2y ago
The timeout is configurable.
- watermelon0 2y ago
  It's configurable, but outside of having an IAM users with long-term IAM credentials (which is not ideal security-wise), sessions can be max 12 hours long.
camtarn 2y ago
No. You could either set it up with SSH or HTTPS credentials (managed via IAM Console or CLI) or use the AWS CLI's credential helper that managed everything automatically. The credential helper was a little weird to set up the first time I used it, but once I wrote up the instructions it was easy enough. Honestly I've never come across the '12 hours of usage' thing for AWS. But I only use CodeCommit, EC2, S3, SNS, SES, and other low-level services.
- ChadyWady 2y ago
  The "12 hours" comes from IAM roles... some organizations don't allow folks to use IAM users for security reasons; many are now swapping to a setup like IAM Identity Center where they are granted temporary AWS credentials for an IAM role using an SSO provider.

GardenLetter27 2y ago

It was never great anyway, although I wonder how they will handle some of the AWS stuff that would use it by default (automatically deploying private Lambdas, etc. IIRC).

simonw 2y ago

In writing this up - https://simonwillison.net/2024/Jul/30/aws-codecommit-quietly-deprecated/ https://simonwillison.net/2024/Jul/30/aws-codecommit-quietly... - I found out about a much more significant deprecation: Amazon QLDB (Quantum Ledger Database - a blockchain-ish thing they launched in GA in 2019) is being hard-deprecated too! They're shutting it down completely on 31st July 2025, having announced the shutdown a few weeks ago (on July 18th). QLDB shutdown announcement in the release notes: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/qldb/latest/developerguide/document-history.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/qldb/latest/developerguide/docum... Their blog post about how to rewrite QLDB apps to use Aurora PostgreSQL instead: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/database/migrate-an-amazon-qldb-ledger-to-amazon-aurora-postgresql/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/database/migrate-an-amazon-qldb... Hacker News discussion from when QLDB was first announced in 2018: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18553387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18553387 I also found this handy community GitHub repo which tracks these breaking AWS changes and lets you subscribe to them via an Atom feed: https://github.com/SummitRoute/aws_breaking_changes https://github.com/SummitRoute/aws_breaking_changes

formerly_proven 2y ago
> Their blog post about how to rewrite QLDB apps to use Aurora PostgreSQL instead Straight callback to all the "you don't need a blockchain, you just need a database".
- arianvanp 2y ago
  It wasn't a blockchain per se. It basically was Amazon's Version of Rich Hickey's Datomic and them pointing people to Aurora for Migration is a bit of a joke. It's a completely different product. QLDB is an immutable database with allowing you to move back and forward in history and do live streaming of events etc with cryptographic verification built in. You _can_ set up Postgres like this but it's a lot of hoops and not very user friendly (some monstrosity involving DMS, Kinesis Firehose and what not).
  - kfrzcode 2y ago
    This makes me wonder if Hedera Hashgraph can support this use case...

viccis 2y ago

Not surprised. CodeCommit was released alongside a stable of other mediocre tools for CI/CD (CodePipeline and CodeDeploy if I recall correctly) that reflected the pinnacle of AWS's mid-to-late 2010s attitude, which is to find something popular and offer an incredibly mediocre alternative to it that will still be used by those teams who want to move as much as possible to AWS. Seems like that stalled out a bit, mostly due to it being so insanely bad that even the most dedicated AWS fanatics didn't bite. I feel like a lot of the recent stuff is just drop-in replacement AWS alternatives to popular tools (like Kafka and Cassandra) with outrageous price tags.

vasco 2y ago
Doesn't it reflect more on the quality of the people involved? These tools came out at the same time as a bunch of other AWS tools that are still used. The platform itself, the company around these teams was the same, so why did Code Commit suck but other AWS products from the same vintage turned out great?
- scarface_74 2y ago
  You’ve never been part of a large organization have you? I have a little insight on how things like CodeCommit fall behind the competition. I worked at AWS in the Professional Services division. For a little over two years I was on a makeshift team maintaining and improving a very popular open source project in its niche. The project was hosted on “AWS Samples” (https://github.com/aws-samples https://github.com/aws-samples). Once approved for the initial release of a project in this Github organization, there is no oversite on updates. In my experience from releasing 8 of my own projects to the repository, it takes about two days to get the initial approval and it’s really based on the honor system as far as following the guidelines after that. We released features and improvements like gangbusters based on customer demand or if we just wanted to scratch an itch. Then, it became popular enough to be promoted from “AWS Samples” to an “AWS Solution” (https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/ https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/). Everything slowed to a crawl, releases, approval processes, you had to justify everything you wanted to add based on revenue potential, everything had to be approved by higher ups. We were the sane developers. I dropped out of the project then. But I saw the storm coming, so my last major contribution before it got transitioned was to introduce “hooks” functionality that allowed you to change the processing pipeline by adding a custom lambda arn to it in settings. Before it became a “solution” former AWS employees who use to work on the project who were still in the industry would make changes and submit pull requests that we would merge. But back to CodeCommit, can you imagine how hard it is to convince senior leadership to give you funding for a service that neither gives you a competitive advantage nor is a revenue generator? Hell they just added support for viewing images inline in markdown from the console this year.

irjustin 2y ago

I never did liked CodeCommit after testing it about 2 years ago. Just felt like an afterthought. They better not touch CodePipeline and CodeDeploy though.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

AWS had and probably still has the least interesting and immature way of investing in new products of any organization with the resources it has. Apart from the early wave of AWS products virtually everything has been a dud. There are so many random AWS products that are live but basically dead because Amazon/AWS never invested enough into them. Totally predictable outcome. I’m not sure why Bezos made Andy Jassy CEO.

ChadyWady 2y ago
Their business models has always been basically MS's strategy: Build out a massive sales and consulting organization, and then build products so that sales people can generate feature matrices to compare themselves with the competition. I'm certain they're keenly aware that they build shit products -- but they know that the majority of their customers are willing to pay a premium for a worse product if it means avoiding talking to finance and ensuring compliance for any external vendor.

rohansood15 2y ago

While this isn't surprising considering how bad it was, it is surprising considering that they recently announced the whole Amazon Q for software development thing. Who's going to trust them with Dev tooling now?

donw 2y ago

Cue rebrand to “AWS Code Freeze”.

genericacct 2y ago

Hoping they never disable cloud9 for my account

ThinkBeat 2y ago

AWS CodePipeline + CodeDeploy are horrors¹ from what I saw at a client. They had mandated .Net + Javascript for all development, GitHub for versioning, and AWS for all other cloud services. The different projects they had going were not complex or huge. Yet it took months to get it up and running. The last month at least they paid for AWS specialists to come in and set it up and even they spent weeks. Throughout it all, any notion of trying a different CI/CD stack were rudely dismissed. Once it was up and running nobody dared touch the pipeline again. From all the AWS services that the customer used nothing was ever comparable to the horrors of their CI/CD. Setting it up with Azure's offerings would have been damned near trivial. I have however not used those in production so I do not have the experience to able to say it is a better solution over all. ¹ In fairness, AWS had just recently released the CI/CD offerings and things may be a lot better now. I havent look at it again since then.

kjfarm 2y ago

Are they shutting down CodeCatalyst as well? Or are they just forcing new customers over to CodeCatalyst? It’s weird (for Amazon) they recommend Github and Gitlab over an AWS alternative if they are shifting people over to CodeCatalyst

belter 2y ago

This is very bad, and the silent deprecation of Amazon QLDB even more shocking. It looks like at AWS the MBA's are fully in charge... Many in this thread commenting on CodeCommit not being GitHub or GitLab are missing the point. I don't want to have my companies code with GitHub/Microsoft and being used to train their AI. Also don't want to have to rely on a third party like GitLab, that is a company who makes no money, and whose losses are $55 million dollars a quarter, and has shaky internal technical governance. Did not forget about their Prod database one man setup.... I don't care about the lack of features of CodeCommit. It's usefulness was essentially providing a managed git server. Did not need more, but needed it as a managed server in the AWS Cloud. The alternatives now will be the third parties, or the additional effort of running EC2 instances and managing the resilience and architecture. This does not predict a good future for tools like Amazon CodeGuru Reviewer for Java and Python, CodeArtifact, CodePipeline and CodeBuild. And even if these plus QLDB were probably money losers for AWS, the MBA's are missing the point. I would not be surprised if these silent decisions, are not reversed shortly, or if the service is just kept forever as is, but not deprecated. Edit: Just found this "AWS breaking changes and price increases" - https://github.com/SummitRoute/aws_breaking_changes?tab=readme-ov-file https://github.com/SummitRoute/aws_breaking_changes?tab=read... Don't know what is going on but now also Cloud9 seems to have a shaky future? Not on-boarding new customers? AMZN Earnings Release is next Thursday after market close. https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/amzn/earnings https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/amzn/earnings I am going to listen to that earnings call, very carefully....

frikkie444 2y ago

The worst thing about CodeCommit is that repo URLs are not unique, Depending on the AWS account you log in to, you can have a different repo with the same url. Second worst thing is that it basically refuses to show a diff for any file longer than a few lines. Third worst thing is you need a login helper and special generated credential to create a login. Fourth worst thing is the absolute slowness of it. Good riddance.

kennu 2y ago

Very disappointing. CodeCommit had value in its APIs for managing and accessing Git repositories programmatically e.g. from Lambda functions. I've used it to implement simple, Git-compatible version control in some projects by calling the PutFile API. Now it will be much more complicated to achieve something similar.

nyarlathotep_ 2y ago

AWS is now pathologically focused on the GenAI services they're shilling. Services like this fall to the wayside.

skywhopper 2y ago

This link doesn’t appear to have that information. It’s just an unanswered question about being unable to create CodeCommit repos. Is there an actual announcement somewhere?