One HUGE drawback is that now free plan is basically Community Edition, and you should pay for Enterprise features such as autosquash commits etc.
I thought that Gitlab.com is a showcase of full edition, and you buy it for self hosting if needed.
Introducing paid subscriptions on GitLab.com
71–80 of 81 posts
Re: Introducing paid subscriptions on GitLab.com
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
That are a lot of issues, I sorry that you've had all those problems with GitHost.io. GitHost.io is a service we've offered because GitLab.com was not usable for everyone. One of the problems was the latency of GitLab.com. We're making good progress in fixing that. Are there other things that keep you on GitHost.io? We've heard that people want LDAP sync and we're planning to bring this to GitLab.com. Is there anythi…
Not to be snarky but our instance is still non-responsive.
Personally, I think there's a lot of Wizard of Oz going on with gitlab. Put up a decent front so far but utterly incoherent/incompetent behind the scenes.
Re: Introducing paid subscriptions on GitLab.com
#73I doubt their infrastructure would scale well, even with more income. They still haven't adopt WebSocket/Rails 5, and this would attract more CI runners to DDoS their database.
Re: Introducing paid subscriptions on GitLab.com
#74I've experienced so much downtime and other random outages with GitLab that I would probably just go to GitHub if I was going to pay for something.
I was going to say just this.
I've been between github and gitlab lately, mostly because gitlab had private repos and I'm developing a new FOSS app that I want to release at a later point.
But recently I wanted to create a new simple public repo for a small task and gitlab just refused to work. Eventually there was some sort of ghost repo created that prevented me from using the path I wanted, but it wouldn't show up in my projects.
So to get on with my work I created the repo at github.
Sad because I was really invested in migrating from github.
Re: Introducing paid subscriptions on GitLab.com
#75I doubt their infrastructure would scale well, even with more income. They still haven't adopt WebSocket/Rails 5, and this would attract more CI runners to DDoS their database.
This sounds like you threw in a few buzzwords. Why would a CI runner DDoS their database? How would WebSockets help them scale?
Re: Introducing paid subscriptions on GitLab.com
#76I doubt their infrastructure would scale well, even with more income. They still haven't adopt WebSocket/Rails 5, and this would attract more CI runners to DDoS their database.
This sounds like you threw in a few buzzwords. Why would a CI runner DDoS their database? How would WebSockets help them scale?
They doesn't use any long polling method but periodical fetching method for getting pending CI jobs. This causes massive lock on their database, and once it bring down the server entirely.
Re: Introducing paid subscriptions on GitLab.com
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds like you threw in a few buzzwords. Why would a CI runner DDoS their database? How would WebSockets help them scale?
They doesn't use any long polling method but periodical fetching method for getting pending CI jobs. This causes massive lock on their database, and once it bring down the server entirely.
Per worker? That seems bad, yes.
Re: Introducing paid subscriptions on GitLab.com
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds like you threw in a few buzzwords. Why would a CI runner DDoS their database? How would WebSockets help them scale?
They doesn't use any long polling method but periodical fetching method for getting pending CI jobs. This causes massive lock on their database, and once it bring down the server entirely.
Heya,
Just wanted to let you know that we introduced long pooling with GitLab Runner version 1.9.0 (~ three months ago).
Also you might want to take a gander at https://about.gitlab.com/2017/04/10/upcoming-runner-changes-... We're throttling older runners.
Re: Introducing paid subscriptions on GitLab.com
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to be snarky but our instance is still non-responsive.
Personally, I think there's a lot of Wizard of Oz going on with gitlab. Put up a decent front so far but utterly incoherent/incompetent behind the scenes.
I don't agree, their product is awesome and they don't seem any more or less incoherent/incompetent than any other startup/small company.
Re: Introducing paid subscriptions on GitLab.com
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
That are a lot of issues, I sorry that you've had all those problems with GitHost.io. GitHost.io is a service we've offered because GitLab.com was not usable for everyone. One of the problems was the latency of GitLab.com. We're making good progress in fixing that. Are there other things that keep you on GitHost.io? We've heard that people want LDAP sync and we're planning to bring this to GitLab.com. Is there anythi…
Hi. An off topic. In page https://about.gitlab.com/products/#comparison it says "Community and support forums only" which is applicable only to "Community Edition". It may better be titled as "Community and support forums" and show the tick mark below every Edition. This could of course save you some time (and money).
Thanks! We fixed it in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/merge_requests/...