101–110 of 128 posts
Awesome! Really awesome features. Time to persuade my boss to move to Gitlab now. Just need some data on the latency and reliability. so far, I only found https://status.gitlab.com/ . need some historical data now.
GitLab's been going at it for quite a while now, congrats for another awesome release! And keep up the great work guys, it's much appreciated!
Thanks aban! Any feedback?
For my 2¢, it would be really great to see some "official" love for Haskell at GitLab :) E.g. having Haskell tools installed on shared runners would be pretty nice!
I'm also curious to know the state of functional programming at GitLab. I know you guys mostly do Ruby, but would you be open to employees using functional languages or frameworks for work? (e.g. Elm, Elixir, Haskell and other exciting functional stuff)
I'm seeing this as Gitlab working towards their Jira killer. With Mattermost also in the omnibus edition this is rather ace. Congratulations to the team!
My job would never cotton to putting stuff on Github, so GitLab existing and being of such high quality has been fantastic. Really been impressed with it.
Is it a matter of taste or Github's UI indeed looks more professional than Gitlab's one? I've tried to switch from GH to GL hosted for my personal projects multiple times and no luck. I like the fact that Gitlab is open-source and it has a lot of features but I still don't feel comfortable using it. Any opinions and preferences on GH's UI vs. GL's UI?
I have yet to understand where this kanban board stuff makes sense. Apparently, the Agile philosophy [0] introduced this to the software development world. Most implementations (Gitlab, Wekan) seem to miss central features (limits, cycle time stats). I guess those boards serve as a issue tracker extension for short term development? How does that improve the process? Why do you need that on top of an issue tracker? R…
The visualization and instant-modification of kanban boards is really appealing from a task/issue management perspective. It shouldn't replace issue tracking, it can serve as a frontend to portions of it.
With both GitHub and gitlab, I wish there was more work in making it easy to create pull requests without having to click around on a website. I'll often check out software, notice something small that I can easily fix, and spend 5 minutes fixing and testing it. But then I have to spend another 5 minutes going on GitHub, forking the repository to my profile, going back into my shell, changing the URL for origin, push…
Depending how small the fix is, you can edit a file in any project right from the GitLab interface, and a fork and merge request will be created automatically in the background! The only thing left to do is to remove the fork after the MR has been accepted.
A patch is a unit of change. Historically, that's the type of unit that the open source world has operated with. The only reason we're having this conversation right now is because GitHub decided to build on top of pull requests instead of patches for lock-in reasons. GitLab has no such motivations, so it's silly to continue following them, especially since Git has had native support for patches from the beginning.
Just support patches already.
This is awesome. Is it possible to have a central set of issues per group? Many (real-world) projects have issues that span across multiple (GitLab) projects. I guess one could create an "empty" project for issues, but this is hacky. Thanks again.
This is awesome. Is it possible to have a central set of issues per group? Many (real-world) projects have issues that span across multiple (GitLab) projects. I guess one could create an "empty" project for issues, but this is hacky. Thanks again.