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

GitLab 10.6 released with CI/CD for GitHub

about.gitlab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 107 posts

Re: GitLab 10.6 released with CI/CD for GitHub

#91

Post by kgradin »

jerrac wrote: post #89

If any GitLab people are still watching this thread, has there ever been any discussion on offering subscriptions to specific EE features? Instead of a full per user subscription. I work at a small community college and we have a self hosted instance of GitLab-CE. There's no way we could budget anything for a subscription (as much as I'd love to support GitLab's development.) So, if I could tell my boss that we could…

Thanks for your comment. We would be happy to discuss options with you if you could submit a contact request by following the link here https://about.gitlab.com/sales/ we will reach out to you.

Re: GitLab 10.6 released with CI/CD for GitHub

#92

Post by parent5446 »

tmuir wrote: post #88
yashap wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a highly unfair criticism, you’re never going to have total feature parity with your competitors, nor is that even a good thing to strive for.

Mine is a perfectly valid criticism. You do nobody any favors by conflating the goal of total feature parity with the general concept of business intelligence, and understanding your direct competitor's key features. The strawman you float is the complete opposite of what I asked. It simply occurred to me as strange that there are features that meet all of the following requirements: 1. Available on github for quite…

You seem pretty worked up about this one feature.

> 3. A popular enough feature to possibly gate the entire calculus for users to switch services.

I'd say GitLab's CI/CD system is a lot more useful of a feature. At the very least you can use the actual git blame or another git UI as a workaround. Good luck setting up a replacement CI/CD system.

> 4. Obviously useful feature, as evidenced by the gitlab triage engineer being convinced to add an issue with a single paragraph plea.

That's not how triage works. Just because a bug is filed doesn't mean it's "obviously useful". If the employee had immediately given it a high importance, a release date, and assigned it to somebody, that'd be a different story.

> 5. Gitlab is seemingly unaware of this publicly available information, to the trivially rectified detriment of their own bottom line.

Well, since there is another bug already filed for this feature more than six months ago, [0] I'd say they are quite aware, they just don't consider it as important as you do. The particular person that replied to you just didn't know about it (not surprising when they have more than 10k bugs open).

[0] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/37135

Re: GitLab 10.6 released with CI/CD for GitHub

#93

Post by ragesh »

eslaught wrote: post #27
jgh wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried CircleCI? I've found it really straightforward to use in a lot of the same ways you mention, except for perhaps the docker support -- it uses docker images and you can of course have a docker image that supports docker, but it doesnt upload to dockerhub out of the box. I'm curious to know how the two compare because I haven't tried Gitlab before.

So last time I checked (and I sent an email to sales to confirm) CircleCI doesn't have support for a configuration where you want to use both public and private runners. I want to use my own machines to build certain jobs (perhaps because those jobs require heavy computation), but I want to use the free, shared, cloud-based runners for the rest (to increase overall throughput). And I want to do this while keeping the…

Disclosure: I work at Shippable.

I think the latest features we launched at Shippable meets all of your requirements. You can mix and match on-demand and dedicated nodes, allocate them to specific projects if you'd like, all of this is available in our SaaS edition, and pricing is (in my opinion) quite reasonable.

Re: GitLab 10.6 released with CI/CD for GitHub

#94

Post by kkapelon »

diggan wrote: post #22
Thaxll wrote: post #18

I'm curious for the people that use GitLab CI/CD, what's the pro / cons vs Jenkins and the like?

A short while ago (eh, just noticed this was over a year ago...) I did a comparison between different testing solutions for all projects within the IPFS organization. Remember this was a year ago, so many things have changed but we ended up going with Jenkins and I'm now migrating projects from free usage of Travis/CircleCI to Jenkins. - Brief explanation: https://github.com/ipfs/infrastructure/issues/100#issuecomme.…

Very Nice!

I did something similar but only for hosted solutions

http://blog.codepipes.com/hosted-ci-comparison/hosted-ci-com...

I am preparing another blog post for on-premise (GoCD, Jenkins, Concourse etc.)

Re: GitLab 10.6 released with CI/CD for GitHub

#95

Post by kkapelon »

lobster_johnson wrote: post #71

I've never used GitLab, and I'm curious if it's something my company could use. Almost all our Github projects use Docker. We don't use automatic deploys at the moment, but CI basically consists of building a Dockerfile, then running tests with "docker-compose run", then pushing the image to GCR. We do have some projects that consist of multiple dockerfiles, but they're outliers. Everything else follows the same conv…

> Jenkins: Nobody likes Jenkins, apparently.

That is not a good reason for not using Jenkins. You should try to see if it covers your needs and if it does, you should not care about what other people think about it.

Also you can discover more options here:

http://blog.codepipes.com/hosted-ci-comparison/hosted-ci-com...

Re: GitLab 10.6 released with CI/CD for GitHub

#96

Post by tmuir »

parent5446 wrote: post #92
tmuir wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mine is a perfectly valid criticism. You do nobody any favors by conflating the goal of total feature parity with the general concept of business intelligence, and understanding your direct competitor's key features. The strawman you float is the complete opposite of what I asked. It simply occurred to me as strange that there are features that meet all of the following requirements: 1. Available on github for quite…

You seem pretty worked up about this one feature. > 3. A popular enough feature to possibly gate the entire calculus for users to switch services. I'd say GitLab's CI/CD system is a lot more useful of a feature. At the very least you can use the actual git blame or another git UI as a workaround. Good luck setting up a replacement CI/CD system. > 4. Obviously useful feature, as evidenced by the gitlab triage engineer…

You seem to baselessly project negative emotions and motivations on to your interlocutors in lieu of coherent points that actually refute their arguments.

chinhodado, the GP, framed his feature request as one of the major reasons he is forced to continue using github. Gitlab's motivation for the very feature this thread is regarding, is to poach github customers, or at the very least, increase their customer base by giving people a smoother onramp to transition from github. More power to them.

The feature he describes does, in fact, have obvious utility, which is why it was so strange to me, someone who only uses gitlab for its most basic features, to see the exchange with the gitlab engineer. Surely a company with the venture capital that gitlab has raised would perform the basic ongoing market research that any company in nearly any competitive market performs.

It honestly made me wonder if gitlab on one hand, realizes that they need to inform themselves of useful features, but for whatever reason, doesn't avail themselves of github's features.

Re: GitLab 10.6 released with CI/CD for GitHub

#97

Post by brodock »

joshfriend wrote: post #87
mryall wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitbucket Cloud PM here. We'd love to see more usage of Bitbucket (both Cloud and Server) by GitLab users. As williamchia mentioned above, it's possible to configure GitLab builds for a Bitbucket Cloud or Server repository via webhooks and our build status API today. We're open to helping build better integration, but given the APIs already exist, it would mainly be a project on the GitLab side.

Is there a way to migrate a repo from Bitbucket Server into gitlab preserving pull request history ?

There is a lack of APIs from bucket to allow that kind of operation. You should consider the lockin each platform have, before jumping in

Re: GitLab 10.6 released with CI/CD for GitHub

#98

Post by IshKebab »

y4mi wrote: post #45
IshKebab wrote: post #19

This is great, although I'll probably stick with Travis & Appveyor for my open source project since Gitlab.com currently only has Linux runners. All three currently have two big flaws IMO though: 1. They all use YAML which is an awful, unintuitive format. 2. The only way to test a configuration is to commit it and push it. Why is there no way to paste a config file in their website and run that? Hopefully one day we'…

Ive got mixed feelings about yaml as well, but which format would you prefer? The Jenkins DSL ist terrible to debug and XML is way too verbose for such a usecase. Yaml is honestly the best option here.

TOML is much better.

Re: GitLab 10.6 released with CI/CD for GitHub

#99

Post by IshKebab »

pknopf wrote: post #30
IshKebab wrote: post #19

This is great, although I'll probably stick with Travis & Appveyor for my open source project since Gitlab.com currently only has Linux runners. All three currently have two big flaws IMO though: 1. They all use YAML which is an awful, unintuitive format. 2. The only way to test a configuration is to commit it and push it. Why is there no way to paste a config file in their website and run that? Hopefully one day we'…

You could replace Travis with Gitlab, since you are using AppVeyor for Windows anyway. With GitLab ci, you can run their "gitlab-runner" command locally pretty easily. I use it often to check my builds before actually pushing. It's a simple Go CLI that requires no setup.

Gitlab doesn't have free cloud-based OSX runners. Travis does.

Re: GitLab 10.6 released with CI/CD for GitHub

#100

Post by diggan »

smulc wrote: post #79
diggan wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A short while ago (eh, just noticed this was over a year ago...) I did a comparison between different testing solutions for all projects within the IPFS organization. Remember this was a year ago, so many things have changed but we ended up going with Jenkins and I'm now migrating projects from free usage of Travis/CircleCI to Jenkins. - Brief explanation: https://github.com/ipfs/infrastructure/issues/100#issuecomme.…

Nice summary. Did you test support for handling multiple changes to a single project in parallel? The only CI Platform I've found that tries to handle this in any meaningful way is OpenStack Zuul ( https://zuul-ci.org/ ) and https://docs.openstack.org/infra/zuul/user/gating.html#testi... for details of the parallel support. Do others have this need? Or are people generally focusing on keeping CI runs short and landin…

No, this was not a consideration, as we often have so many PRs open at one time, that this is probably not feasible. If I understand the process correctly, it would merge each PR in order from the first made until the most recent one. So the most recent one includes all the proposed changes. For ipfs/go-ipfs, that would involve doing 104 tests + builds for each PR.

Rather, we test each branch as it was merged into master (in isolation), and when master changes, trigger builds for PRs that now are changed.

The "Cross Project Testing" and "Cross-Project Dependencies" is something we're deeply in need of though, and already do somewhat. The dependencies are implicit now though (via npm or our golang package manager, gx) rather than explicit.

If anyone have ideas for "cross project testing with dependencies" on Jenkins, I would be very happy to hear them.

Post reply on HN