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

Moving to GitLab

mail.haskell.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 61 posts

Re: Moving to GitLab

#21

Post by PurpleRamen »

xte wrote: post #15

A small note: what's the difference between GitLab, GitHub etc? Are they companies with a substantially identical target: making money? Does they offer storage on their own server (or even worse others servers in a chain)? So why the hell instead of moving from a company to another ANY FOSS dev do not came back to classic ML (mirrored offline in personal maildir) and use hosting, multiple if possible, only as a mean…

Classic ML sucks, and gitlab is opensource that can be selfhosted. The world evolved and offers now better environments than 20 years ago. No reason to stay behind.

Re: Moving to GitLab

#22

Post by lima »

meestaplu wrote: post #12
the_common_man wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone know what did not work out with phabricator?

Ben Gamari's October 30 email ( https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2018-October/016... ) to the ghc-devs list proposed considering alternatives to Phabricator and outlines reasons that Phab wasn't working. A summary of the problems outlined in the email: * Lack of options for support from Phacility * Free/open source components of Phabricator feeling half-finished because Phacility has redirected development…

> Free/open source components of Phabricator feeling half-finished because Phacility has redirected development resources to paid features

There are no closed-source Phabricator components. The email is complaining about development focus being on the wrong parts (the ones paying customers use), rather the ones Haskell uses.

Re: Moving to GitLab

#24

Post by lima »

edoceo wrote: post #14
meestaplu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ben Gamari's October 30 email ( https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2018-October/016... ) to the ghc-devs list proposed considering alternatives to Phabricator and outlines reasons that Phab wasn't working. A summary of the problems outlined in the email: * Lack of options for support from Phacility * Free/open source components of Phabricator feeling half-finished because Phacility has redirected development…

> Phabricator's nonstandard workflow, which requires installation of the Arcanist command-line tool I was just going to eval Phab for my team, your comment identified a deal breaker for us and you've saved me more than a few wasted hours. Thank you

Phabricator's nonstandard workflow and tooling is one of its distinct advantages - maybe give it a second thought.

Re: Moving to GitLab

#25

Post by wodenokoto »

sytelus wrote: post #20

TLDR; Why GitLab instead of GitHub? From their discussion group thread: - Good multi-platform hosted CI or at least workable integration with other (existing) CI solutions - Hosted review tool that we don't have to maintain ourselves (though a little bit less good than Phabricator, allegedly) - familiar GitHub-like workflow with no requirement to install extra software locally - Reuse of GitHub credentials - Realisti…

What is wrong with Travis compared to GL's default CI?

Re: Moving to GitLab

#26

Post by lugg »

edoceo wrote: post #14
meestaplu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ben Gamari's October 30 email ( https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2018-October/016... ) to the ghc-devs list proposed considering alternatives to Phabricator and outlines reasons that Phab wasn't working. A summary of the problems outlined in the email: * Lack of options for support from Phacility * Free/open source components of Phabricator feeling half-finished because Phacility has redirected development…

> Phabricator's nonstandard workflow, which requires installation of the Arcanist command-line tool I was just going to eval Phab for my team, your comment identified a deal breaker for us and you've saved me more than a few wasted hours. Thank you

Please ignore the others in this thread.

Phabricator is basically cancer.

I'm partial to Gerrit if you're looking for a git native solution with branch, draft, patch, review, iterate workflows with proper merge/rebase handling.

It is a bit different from "GitHub flow" but mostly a big improvement in an organisation context (vs FOSS.)

Media wiki has the best docs but it's a bit dense.

https://mediawiki.org/wiki/Gerrit

This page below has a decent graphic and lots of quick examples to show you how powerful it is to work with git instead of gimping it with a wrapper.

https://mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Gerrit/Advance...

Re: Moving to GitLab

#27

Post by ksec »

Gitlab seems to fit all the Open Source Project ideals and philosophy. They don't want the burden of managing a dozen difference software or services for their development, they want coding, not time messing with Ops. And it has to be Open Source and no lock it. And Gitlab could even host it for you with with out you having the hassle.

Amazon, Google. One of them likely to acquire Gitlab. Strategically speaking both company would be a great fit for Gitlab, the only problem is both company absolutely loathe Ruby and Rails.

Or there could be another slim possibility, Microsoft decide to Open Source Github Core.

Re: Moving to GitLab

#28

Post by app4soft »

ksec wrote: post #27

Gitlab seems to fit all the Open Source Project ideals and philosophy. They don't want the burden of managing a dozen difference software or services for their development, they want coding, not time messing with Ops. And it has to be Open Source and no lock it. And Gitlab could even host it for you with with out you having the hassle. Amazon, Google. One of them likely to acquire Gitlab. Strategically speaking both…

> Or there could be another slim possibility, Microsoft decide to Open Source Github Core

Or there could be another slim possibility, Microsoft decide to acquire GitLab...

Re: Moving to GitLab

#30

Post by bad_user »

ksec wrote: post #27

Gitlab seems to fit all the Open Source Project ideals and philosophy. They don't want the burden of managing a dozen difference software or services for their development, they want coding, not time messing with Ops. And it has to be Open Source and no lock it. And Gitlab could even host it for you with with out you having the hassle. Amazon, Google. One of them likely to acquire Gitlab. Strategically speaking both…

Generally speaking when software companies get acquired, the product dies.

If a company is being bought by a bigger company, it only means that the profits aren’t good enough for that company to go public, while at the same time a return is owed to its investors. It means that the company played loose with other people’s money and selling the company is the way out.

In other words companies that are sold are companies that are struggling.

And if that’s the case, the product itself will struggle to generate profits post acquisition as well. And I think there aren’t many examples that are an exception to this rule.

We certainly see YouTube or Instagram flourishing as a result of scale. But those are the exception.

GitHub was sold because GitHub wasn’t profitable or hype-driven enough to go public. It remains to be seen if GitHub survives.

But back to a potential acquisition of GitLab, if it ever happens, I believe GitLab will die, with a community fork being the only way out.

I’m writing this because HN has a fetish for acquisitions, which is interesting since to me an acquisition is often a death announcement.

Post reply on HN