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

31–40 of 61 posts

Re: Moving to GitLab

#31

Post by skrebbel »

lugg wrote: post #26
edoceo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Phabricator is basically cancer.

I think you need a lessen in sensible writing. You don't like Phabricator, fine. It's not cancer. Not "basically" either.

Re: Moving to GitLab

#32

Post by lugg »

skrebbel wrote: post #31
lugg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Phabricator is basically cancer. I think you need a lessen in sensible writing. You don't like Phabricator, fine. It's not cancer. Not "basically" either.

You don't like my casual use of the word cancer? Fine. Personally I feel like cancer was a relatively good approximation for the cancerous like changes you need to make to established industry workflows once you begin to use phabricator.

Would you have preferred I used the word infection? Virus? Aids?

Which one of those metaphors crosses the "sense writing" line for you?

Why does cancer?

Re: Moving to GitLab

#33

Post by kiallmacinnes »

bad_user wrote: post #30
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 companie…

Let's say that's all true - why would anyone ever acquire a company if its for certain, by virtue of being on sale, flailing?

I think it's often the case that the product dies, but I honestly believe that's more often than not down to the new parent company having no idea how to run and manage the product and team.

Re: Moving to GitLab

#34

Post by xte »

PurpleRamen wrote: post #21
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.

Well for me "evolving" from a standard thing to a monster web app that require far more resources and offer far less flexibility have a name: involution...

Of course I know that many are limited to webmails or obsolete, limiting and limited MUAs from the '90s but that's again involution.

If you have notmuch/emacs or (neo)vim *{mutt,pine} you have a far more advanced computing environment that no web up can even try to mach.

"stay behind" today's often means stay in a modern and colorful stone age instead of powerful technology.

Re: Moving to GitLab

#35

Post by barneygale »

lugg wrote: post #32
skrebbel wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Phabricator is basically cancer. I think you need a lessen in sensible writing. You don't like Phabricator, fine. It's not cancer. Not "basically" either.

You don't like my casual use of the word cancer? Fine. Personally I feel like cancer was a relatively good approximation for the cancerous like changes you need to make to established industry workflows once you begin to use phabricator. Would you have preferred I used the word infection? Virus? Aids? Which one of those metaphors crosses the "sense writing" line for you? Why does cancer?

Describing software as "cancer" is something I'd expect to see on 4chan or reddit, not HN. It's hyperbole and your explanation ("relatively good approximation for the cancerous like changes [to] workflows") shows as much.

Re: Moving to GitLab

#36

Post by btasovac »

RomanPushkin wrote: post #7

What's the point of moving from one proprietary service to another? One day GetLab will get acquired by another tech giant, or will stay the same - it doesn't matter too much, because it's already owned by private company and venture capitalists. They do what they want, and they definitely won't turn down million-dollar acquisition offer.

GitLab is an open core company [1], meaning that we ship GitLab CE which is open source and GitLab EE that is closed source. We try to be a good steward of the open source project. GitLab EE is proprietary, closed source code but we try to work in a way similar to GitLab CE: the issue tracker is publicly viewable and the EE license allows modifications.

In conclusion (TLDR), GitLab has an open core business model and ships both open and closed source software.

[1] - https://about.gitlab.com/2016/07/20/gitlab-is-open-core-gith...

Re: Moving to GitLab

#37

Post by preommr »

app4soft wrote: post #28
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...

"slim possibility"

If Microsoft was dumb enough to pay 7+ bn for Github, there's probably a good chance they'd do something stupid again and bust out another fat stack of billions for Gitlab.

Re: Moving to GitLab

#38

Post by btasovac »

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…

Thanks for sharing this! Yes, instead of a version control system that lets people try out different integrations, GitLab provides an opinionated (yet flexible with key integrations and the option to opt out of anything you don't want) way to run the entire software development and deployment lifecycle.

You can learn more about the different stages of the DevOps lifecycle on our Product page [1].

[1] - https://about.gitlab.com/product/

Re: Moving to GitLab

#39

Post by IshKebab »

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

Arcanist is actually a reasonably nice tool. It is certainly far superior to opening pull requests in a web interface.

The only real downside I've found with using phabricator at work is the lack of a decent built in CI system. You can integrate it with external ones fairly well but that seems like something you shouldn't have to do.

Re: Moving to GitLab

#40

Post by btasovac »

btasovac wrote: post #38
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…

Thanks for sharing this! Yes, instead of a version control system that lets people try out different integrations, GitLab provides an opinionated (yet flexible with key integrations and the option to opt out of anything you don't want) way to run the entire software development and deployment lifecycle. You can learn more about the different stages of the DevOps lifecycle on our Product page [1]. [1] - https://about.…

Regarding acquisition, our goal is to go public on Wednesday November 18, 2020. You can read more about our goals and in which order we want to achieve them on our Strategy page [1].

[1] - https://about.gitlab.com/company/strategy/#sequence

Post reply on HN