Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Debian and GNOME announce plans to migrate communities to GitLab

about.gitlab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 164 posts

Re: Debian and GNOME announce plans to migrate communities to GitLab

#121

Post by ZenoArrow »

sytse wrote: post #61
romanovcode wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't see this happen until they fix their unintuitive UI and general slowlness of application. Other then that GitLab is amazing.

Have you tried our new UI in GitLab 10? We're not done yet making GitLab faster but it is getting better quickly. Last big thing we're working on are merge requests with hundreds of comments. Should come out on a few months.

I'm not sure what UI changes are in GitLab 10 but something that seems a little off for me is that when you're on a repo homepage, there can be quite a bit of scrolling before you get to the readme. For example:

https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/

Perhaps this is by design, to emphasise the code rather than the description of the code, but in my opinion the repo homepage is mostly for those new to the code to start becoming acquainted with it (other pages are more focused on the needs of regular contributors, as they should be), so it makes sense (to me at least) to make the readme more prominent.

I'm not going to suggest how to change it, as it's a decision that should be driven by the UI design team, but just flagging it as something to consider.

Re: Debian and GNOME announce plans to migrate communities to GitLab

#122

Post by 0d311 »

WD-42 wrote: post #67

As someone who has attempted to contribute to the GNOME project, this makes me super happy. The current process is archaic: attaching patch files to weird bug trackers and then sorta just waiting for someone to get back to you... A proper pull request system with code review would lower the barrier of entry for contributions to these projects significantly.

I find the same issue with working on Python.

Re: Debian and GNOME announce plans to migrate communities to GitLab

#123

Post by richardfontana »

sytse wrote: post #84
jwildeboer wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your position. But it hurts me a bit to see all of the hard work we put into replacing the Apache style CLA with the FPCA and our messaging around it to make sure we explain it in transparent ways being reduced to "doesn't really matter, it's still just a CLA if you're not an expert" :(

Mmm, I'm sorry to hear that. I agree that between CLA's there can be vast differences in the terms. We did not intent to detail those differences in our blog post. BTW Have you considered changing it to a DCO?

I've casually suggested this to some people involved in Fedora. FWIW I think it would be a good idea, and I think at this point the retention of the FPCA by Fedora is mostly a matter of inertia.

But I share jwildeboer's sentiment, having been directly involved in the drafting of the FPCA to replace the old Fedora CLA. If one looks at the FPCA in historical context, it may be clearer that it is intended as an "un-CLA".

One could argue that the DCO is a type of CLA. I know some people who call the DCO a contributor agreement, at least, and if it is a contributor agreement, it is one that refers to licensing of what's being contributed.

Anyway, kudos to Gitlab for switching to the DCO!

Re: Debian and GNOME announce plans to migrate communities to GitLab

#124

Post by sytse »

richardfontana wrote: post #123
sytse wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mmm, I'm sorry to hear that. I agree that between CLA's there can be vast differences in the terms. We did not intent to detail those differences in our blog post. BTW Have you considered changing it to a DCO?

I've casually suggested this to some people involved in Fedora. FWIW I think it would be a good idea, and I think at this point the retention of the FPCA by Fedora is mostly a matter of inertia. But I share jwildeboer's sentiment, having been directly involved in the drafting of the FPCA to replace the old Fedora CLA. If one looks at the FPCA in historical context, it may be clearer that it is intended as an "un-CLA"…

Thanks! I've tried to make an update to the rationale document https://www.dropbox.com/s/xklo7gqca1k9jcn/Screenshot%202017-...

Re: Debian and GNOME announce plans to migrate communities to GitLab

#125

Post by jhurewitz »

jwildeboer wrote: post #62
sytse wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fedora requires an FPCA. In the comments below https://about.gitlab.com/2017/11/01/gitlab-switches-to-dco-l... we say the following about that: "While FPCA may not be a typical CLA with regard to rights and restrictions, this is not the only factor we looked into. We also were looking into whether there were terms in general, other than commonly used open source terms. Our analysis took into account that non-legal us…

I understand your position. But it hurts me a bit to see all of the hard work we put into replacing the Apache style CLA with the FPCA and our messaging around it to make sure we explain it in transparent ways being reduced to "doesn't really matter, it's still just a CLA if you're not an expert" :(

I would like to personally apologize. No offense was ever intended. Looking into what the industry was doing was not a determining factor when we decided to move to the DCO. I personally can appreciate the amount of work it takes to make changes to licensing terms. It is a difficult task to try to create terms that will please your users. As I am sure you have experienced, you will never be able to please everyone, there will always be nay-sayers and opponents. However, if you have any interest in moving to DCO, I would be happy to talk to anyone interested in talking about our analysis and process.

Re: Debian and GNOME announce plans to migrate communities to GitLab

#127

Post by vbernat »

connorshea wrote: post #118
Ruud-v-A wrote: post #114

I was under the impression that Debian is in the process of moving to Pagure [1]. The reasons mentioned in the LWN article are not invalidated by Gitlab's announcement of dropping the CLA. [1]: https://lwn.net/Articles/724986/

Based on the Debian Wiki, plans have since changed[0] (unless this page is outdated?). That LWN article is from June, the wiki article was last edited in September. My understanding from the mailing list is that they're planning on using GitLab, at least that's what I heard last. I could always be wrong. [0]: https://wiki.debian.org/Alioth#Deprecation_of_Alioth

You are right. Part of discussion starts here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/10/msg00264.html

Re: Debian and GNOME announce plans to migrate communities to GitLab

#128

Post by WD-42 »

carussell wrote: post #99
freedomben wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, a lot of the process you mention is fully automated so to the user it's just a few clicks. Not quite as laborious.

I don't know what you're referring to. Not quite as laborious as what? When I mentioned things like "setting up a remote", I was specifically thinking of GitHub and GitLab's web forms. It's as exactly as involved as I outlined above.

It's really not that hard: https://help.github.com/articles/creating-a-pull-request-fro...

Re: Debian and GNOME announce plans to migrate communities to GitLab

#129

Post by alvil »

akerro wrote: post #6
Dunedan wrote: post #2

I can't help to think that Gitlab is more and more eating Github's lunch. I wonder why we see so little from Github to get out of that situation.

Because github still has 99% of that market. Just look at how many repositories opened by Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, NSA, GCHQ and 100s of others big players are on Github and how many on Gitlab.

Most of these companies projects on Github are projects of their employees, not official projects :)

Re: Debian and GNOME announce plans to migrate communities to GitLab

#130

Post by jhurewitz »

sytse wrote: post #124
richardfontana wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've casually suggested this to some people involved in Fedora. FWIW I think it would be a good idea, and I think at this point the retention of the FPCA by Fedora is mostly a matter of inertia. But I share jwildeboer's sentiment, having been directly involved in the drafting of the FPCA to replace the old Fedora CLA. If one looks at the FPCA in historical context, it may be clearer that it is intended as an "un-CLA"…

Thanks! I've tried to make an update to the rationale document https://www.dropbox.com/s/xklo7gqca1k9jcn/Screenshot%202017-...

It has been updated.
Post reply on HN