AWS's recent fait accompli deprecation of CodeCommit and six other services was a shock to me.*
Not because CodeCommit was a particularly good product — it wasn't — but because it could have been one with some investment. While there are many Git repository services in the world, CodeCommit was part of the AWS ecosystem, giving it some unique capabilities. Capabilites that AWS never exploited.
CodeCommit was released at re:Invent 2014, and became generally available the following summer. At some point after that, I moved a couple of repositories that I'd been self-hosting. At the time, GitHub didn't support private repositories, and I was happy to pay AWS a few cents a month to ensure that they were available anywhere and safely backed-up.
The first thing I noticed about CodeCommit was that it was painfully slow. To put some numbers on that: an HTTPS clone of my appenders library (~10,000 objects, 2.6 MiB) from GitHub takes 0.917 seconds. From the identical repository on CodeCommit, the time is 7.407 seconds. My website, which has fewer objects but more bytes, takes 22 seconds. While you might not be frequently cloning repositories, pulls and pushes are also much slower than with GitHub.
I was also annoyed that I had to set up an association between my private key and a CodeCommit user: I have several machines, each with their own private key. Making this more annoying, the key associations don't provide any indication of which key they represent; it would have been nice to see the associated public key, or even a key fingerprint.
But as I learned later, I didn't need to make those associations. CodeCommit has a git credential helper that generates temporary credentials based on IAM identity. It's not terribly well documented, and an experienced Git user probably wouldn't look at the documentation anyway (at least, I didn't), especially since the “helpful hints” shown after creating a repository make no mention of it.
Highlighting this one feature would have made CodeCommit a far more useful tool than it was. For example, a CI/CD pipeline running on AWS infrastructure wouldn't need to store credentials to access the source repository. But there's no suggestion that users could do that, even in AWS's own CodeBuild user guide (which gives examples for GitHub, BitBucket, and GitLab).
Or, as an example closer to my own needs: five years ago I submitted an issue to the “CloudFormation roadmap”, asking for the ability to retrieve templates from arbitrary HTTPS URLs (and, based on the stars and comments, this seems to be a common wish). While I can understand reluctance to allow generic public repository URLs as a security risk (somebody, somewhere, would check in something they shouldn't), CodeCommit and role-based credentials would allow CloudFormation to easily support private templates. But with CodeCommit's deprecation, that's a lost cause.
Historically, AWS has made a big deal of “dog-fooding” their services; I don't think this happened with CodeCommit. If you want to download SDK source, or any other AWS-provided open source, you go to GitHub. Although, given how slow CodeCommit is, maybe we should be thankful; something like the Java SDK already takes an enormously long time to download. But without AWS using CodeCommit internally, there was no pressure to improve. And no serendipitous “hey, we can do X!” moments.
So what? Anybody who signed up for CodeCommit can still use it, right? And perhaps it was just hubris on AWS's part to compete with companies that already produced developer tooling and the “Code” suite should never have been released in the first place.
But for me, it's yet another sign that AWS has moved away from “now go build.” And that was what attracted me to AWS in the first place.
* “Fait accompli” because they did not announce their plans in advance, instead using blog posts like this one, which was released after they'd already blocked new users.
