11–20 of 408 posts
A compony moves their code repository to a different provider. Honest question: why is this news worthy? Am I missing something?
That they are moving from Gerrit to Gitlab is a blow against Gerrit and a boon for Gitlab (assuming it goes well).
This is sad. In my experience, Gerrit is a much better code review system than Gitlab merge requests. But it is different from what people are used to.
What advantages do you see in Gerrit? Do they require a lot of experience in order to be realized?
With Github/lab's model, if you force push your PR, you lose the ability to view its previous state and diff against that. Alternately, if you just keep adding commits, then the final branch that gets merged (unless you squash) has all the in-progress work which pollutes the repo's history.
Gerrit also has a finer grained permission model, but I don't care as much about that.
Gerrit definitely expects the user to understand how git works conceptually a bit more than Github/lab.
This is sad. In my experience, Gerrit is a much better code review system than Gitlab merge requests. But it is different from what people are used to.
I guess you can get the hang of Gerrit, but i tried it out a couple of times (i occasionally do work on projects in the Wikimedia git repo) and is pretty evident that the interface is written by developers with little knowledge of user experience. Moving stuff to Gitlab will probably increase the number of volunteer contributions, at least i'm more interested in contributing more now.
One thing stopping me from moving my company's code to gitlabs cloud offering is the storage sizes for repos being extremely small. I heard from a rep that this will change in November. I'm wondering if this purchase-more-storage change come relates to this?
One thing stopping me from moving my company's code to gitlabs cloud offering is the storage sizes for repos being extremely small. I heard from a rep that this will change in November. I'm wondering if this purchase-more-storage change come relates to this?
One thing stopping me from moving my company's code to gitlabs cloud offering is the storage sizes for repos being extremely small. I heard from a rep that this will change in November. I'm wondering if this purchase-more-storage change come relates to this?
Wikimedia will self-host Gitlab. They can use whatever limits they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What advantages do you see in Gerrit? Do they require a lot of experience in order to be realized?
Clear mapping of change request == commit, allowing for easy building of multiple in flight change requests, rearranging them by using git rebase, updating with push to refs/for/master. Easy diffing between states of the CR (patch sets), so you can see what changes since the last round of comments, even if it spanned multiple updates. This is the feature I miss the most from other code review systems - be able to eas…
was forced to use Gerrit by a client. I could never get the hang of this, I like to do frequent commits on short lived branches and using vanilla git. I never wanted any more features other than a nice UI to encourage people to review.
One thing stopping me from moving my company's code to gitlabs cloud offering is the storage sizes for repos being extremely small. I heard from a rep that this will change in November. I'm wondering if this purchase-more-storage change come relates to this?
A compony moves their code repository to a different provider. Honest question: why is this news worthy? Am I missing something?
Wikimedia is very cautious in making changes because they take very seriously the values of sustainability and predictability. That they are moving from Gerrit to Gitlab is a blow against Gerrit and a boon for Gitlab (assuming it goes well).