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

Gitlab 11.8 Released

about.gitlab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: Gitlab 11.8 Released

#31

Post by markdog12 »

yutghgh wrote: post #18
StevePerkins wrote: post #9

You know, there was a thread the other day about a new release announcement for some IDE. It was quickly removed, on grounds that the Hacker News FAQ says you shouldn't repost something " If a story has had significant attention in the last year or so ". I remember thinking that it was a real stretch to interpret different release announcements, separated by months, as "duplicate" posts. But this was coming from dang…

(Note: obviously my opinion, not the actual rules) I do think the rule should be based on the content of the release rather than the timing. If the software contains major new features every month that could be relevant to the HN audience I see no reason to remove the post, it's _new_ information being posted on Hacker _News_. (I haven't seen the referenced IDE update post so I don't have an opinion on it either way.…

Yeah, I think GitLab in particular is a really interesting product that competes in a crucial space for devs. In addition, they've committed and stuck with monthly releases, with new features/improvements, so that's why it's posted so much. I love the monthly releases though.

Re: Gitlab 11.8 Released

#33

Post by reitanqild »

StevePerkins wrote: post #19
markdog12 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve submitted it a few times, just because I use it and like it, interested in discussion about it. I don’t know if I agree with the rule (a whole year?), but I’ll stop submitting it.

Oh, to be clear... I'm perfectly HAPPY with release announcements, and believe that strict interpretation was ridiculous. I was simply taking issue with the inconsistency, arbitrary interpretation, selective enforcement, etc.

Same here.

I'm generally extremely impressed with HN mods but this is one of two (three) minor nits I see.

And to be clear I'd also prefer both to be accepted, at least a little softer duplicate check than today.

Re: Gitlab 11.8 Released

#34

Post by michaelbuckbee »

StevePerkins wrote: post #9

You know, there was a thread the other day about a new release announcement for some IDE. It was quickly removed, on grounds that the Hacker News FAQ says you shouldn't repost something " If a story has had significant attention in the last year or so ". I remember thinking that it was a real stretch to interpret different release announcements, separated by months, as "duplicate" posts. But this was coming from dang…

I think there's some understood weighting function based around familiarity and widespread use in the community.

Re: Gitlab 11.8 Released

#35

Post by yutghgh »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #20
yutghgh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This "rails/ruby is slow" myth really needs to die. Sure, rails is too slow for certain very large companies at very large scales, and if you're in this position you already know it. However, rails is fast enough for 99.5% of usecases, gitlab included. As to memory usage, I will concede it is often somewhat high with rails, but there are solutions, such as jemalloc that have helped me in the past.

Gitlab most certainly not included! Its perf is awful in comparison to any modern stack (including some php ones unfortunately).

I didn't say GitLab was fast (I haven't used it enough to know), but blaming its problems on ruby/rails when GitHub (which is pretty fast imo) is also written on rails is misleading at best.

Re: Gitlab 11.8 Released

#36

Post by aidos »

sytse wrote: post #23
chmln wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have a plan to make GitLab use less resources I used to use gitlab at work daily and releases would mention how performance is being tackled consistently. However, I have not seen any large improvements at all, suggesting that there is an impenetrable wall made of the underlying technologies. Gitlab is based primarily on Ruby-on-Rails, which doesn't particularly shine with neither memory usage nor performance. W…

A big thing we're looking at to reduce memory is making the ruby code multi-threaded. https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/3592

Where is the bottleneck? I’m not massively familar with Ruby, but I’m assuming the underlying language isn’t the problem and it’s more to do with the general architecture?

Re: Gitlab 11.8 Released

#37

Post by sytse »

aidos wrote: post #36
sytse wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big thing we're looking at to reduce memory is making the ruby code multi-threaded. https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/3592

Where is the bottleneck? I’m not massively familar with Ruby, but I’m assuming the underlying language isn’t the problem and it’s more to do with the general architecture?

We already have it working in development. We're cautious because last time we enabled it in production we got a lot of memory usage and runtime errors. I think the problems are that the native extensions from some dependencies are not multi-threading safe but I might be wrong.

Re: Gitlab 11.8 Released

#38

Post by rudedogg »

StevePerkins wrote: post #9

You know, there was a thread the other day about a new release announcement for some IDE. It was quickly removed, on grounds that the Hacker News FAQ says you shouldn't repost something " If a story has had significant attention in the last year or so ". I remember thinking that it was a real stretch to interpret different release announcements, separated by months, as "duplicate" posts. But this was coming from dang…

It's funny, I read your post and thought you must be talking about Lazarus. I did some searching and (I think) found the thread in question (I actually didn't see the submission, but was thinking of the 17 day old one that was marked a dupe and later unduped - which killed the momentum it had):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19169397

I too would like to see some clarity on this rule. I was bummed the 17 day old one was marked a dupe. I personally love Lazarus discussions, it's so interesting to look back on Delphi and think about how little our tools have improved. I think they are so popular because a lot of developers share that sentiment.

Re: Gitlab 11.8 Released

#39

Post by williamchia »

laktak wrote: post #32

I like and use Gitlab, I just wish they would call it PR instead of merge request.

Funny thing, when I joined the team at GitLab over a year ago I was really annoyed by this since I'd been using PR for the better part of a decade. Now I'm so used to saying MR that PR sounds very strange. All in all, "merge request" is a more accurate term and no one ever gets confused about it like https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21657430/why-is-a-git-pu... I think it would be great if other tools just called it an MR as that seems to be the term that is easier to understand.

Re: Gitlab 11.8 Released

#40

Post by johnsea »

williamchia wrote: post #39
laktak wrote: post #32

I like and use Gitlab, I just wish they would call it PR instead of merge request.

Funny thing, when I joined the team at GitLab over a year ago I was really annoyed by this since I'd been using PR for the better part of a decade. Now I'm so used to saying MR that PR sounds very strange. All in all, "merge request" is a more accurate term and no one ever gets confused about it like https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21657430/why-is-a-git-pu... I think it would be great if other tools just called i…

After joining you got brainwashed of course ;-)) It's a minor detail but it's still irritating for me that it doesn't have the same name as in Github. More accurate or not, but Github was first.
Post reply on HN