QLDB shutdown announcement in the release notes: 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...
Hacker News discussion from when QLDB was first announced in 2018: 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
Straight callback to all the "you don't need a blockchain, you just need a database".
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).
By teams that have been mandated to move as much as possible to AWS by their company's senior leadership, because it simplified accounts/they negotiated a "great contract" etc.
In truth, though, Amazon should have bought gitlab instead.
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). 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/).
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.
Any insights on _why_ they turned out to be mediocre? Is it because of them being released as MVP and staying that way for many years or just a lack of interest afterwards?
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-...
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.
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.
AWS can build low level solutions -- EC2, EBS, S3. High level stuff is garbage.
I use GitHub Codespaces now for much of my deployment automation.
Codebuild is also a real pain.
git clone https://git-codecommit.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/v1/repos/foobar
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.
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=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
I am going to listen to that earnings call, very carefully....
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
They better not touch CodePipeline and CodeDeploy though.
Was codecommit like that
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.