Maturity

I used to use GitLab for my personal projects, but moved away for a couple reasons. The primary one is that GitLab is heavily opinionated, and its opinions differ irreconcilably with my own in a few areas.

Now, most of my code is hosted on GitHub, with a few projects hosted in a Gitea instance that I run myself.

> A wiki's not the same usecase as static site, a static site is for marketing and wikis are for project management. I mean maybe people would use it if it weren't crappy? I would've been happier if the wiki didn't exist and I didn't invest time into wrangling it. ATM it's just a frustration.

Hi! I'm the current PM for our wiki's and I agree that the experience isn't up to par at the moment. As Sid mentioned, historically wiki's were not a priority as many users weren't coming to GitLab for those features. We're starting to see shifts in that thinking as we've penetrated deeper in to some markets so we're working to adjust accordingly.

> It's not dataloss but it deletes text in the same line as wiki internal links. And what kind of wiki doesn't use lots of internal links. https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/67132 This basically makes the wiki unusable but it's marked as "backlog".

That issue is interesting because it's a link mechanism that relies on the underlying wiki project that we use. (i.e. that's no common markdown syntax). Discoverability of things like that is limited to some power users who know that we're using Gollum underneath and know of some of the supported syntax. What we've seen is that most users don't use that functionality and instead just use absolute links in markdown. This likely explains why the upvotes are so low on the bug report as well.

For comparison, we've seen more demand to support linking to projects: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/20726, than within the wiki itself.

As an FYI, I've also asked a couple of our engineers to take a look at that specific issue to see if it's something that can be relatively easy to fix. No guarantees on anything here, but we'll try to get a bit more relevant engineering information to assist in understanding scope.

> If you really do feel this way about the wiki then it should be clearly marked in your marketing.

That's a lot of what our maturity pages are trying to do. We're being honest with ourselves and with our users about where we think the functionality of certain features are. In fact, when I started we had the Wiki listed at a `Complete` maturity which I reduced to viable: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/merge_requests/...

If you take a look at the wiki strategy (https://about.gitlab.com/direction/create/wiki/) our next focus is going to be on making editing easier and improving navigation. We think these things will start to move the conversation forward for users and we'll see more adoption.

Even more, if you think we're not moving in the right direction with the Wiki's please be vocal on the issue tracker, or open an issue for the Wiki Strategy or even a merge request to change something. We're happy to have the feedback, and don't hesitate to tag me on wiki issues I'm @phikai on GitLab as well.

I moved all my repos to GitLab almost 2 years ago. I just use the online version.

One of the main reasons I moved was because of price (free), and the available CI. I use a $5 DO droplet to do all my CI running - which gets me unlimited usage. It's awesome, and has only had to be rebuilt once it 2 years due to unresponsiveness.

I've been a big fan of the CI - I use it to build my Docker images, then they get run on k8s. Note - I do not use the AutoDevops feature - so I really don't know how that works for people.

I pack the `gitlab-ci.yml` file with my main building steps and all the other tasks I need to run: deploying to k8s, deleting pods if necessary, running db migrations, stuff like that. It works great - everything just works at the push of a button. And now that I've ironed out the `gitlab-ci.yml` file, I don't even have to think about it anymore when it comes to a new project.

Honestly - I like GitHub's UI a bit better as it's a little more modern, but with GitLab's free private repos - it just lured me at first and I'm content for now.

Thanks for explaining and for taking another look at the issue. Your comment makes sense to me in context of your company's strategy. I'm not saying that's wrong, as surely the breath allows you to gain an niche that is less competitive and less risky than a depth strategy that forces you to compete head to head with great products like notion... but as this thread shows it has enormous downside.

But anyway the double brackets is not a Gollum feature. It's a wiki thing, going back to wikipedia.

Since you're here I think this issue is also misprioritized: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/66898 You should reconsider as a lot of integrations rely on webhooks and broken images make the whole thing impossible.

Thanks for the additional information. The `git_data_dir` and gitaly configuration changes are indeed why we've started requiring moving to the last minor version first. The 10.x to 11.x upgrade was the first major upgrade with these checks, but it doesn't look like we captured all the possible scenarios. (We did prevent a few upgrade failures though, based on customer feedback.)

It is very important for the team to ensure upgrades are smooth. Right around 50% of our installations are running a version at most 3 months old, and we want to continue to improve that number so everyone can take advantage of the latest fixes, features, and security updates.

The team has opened another issue to explore ways to make it more apparent which version should be upgraded to: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/distribution/team-tasks/issues....