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

Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

mediawiki.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 408 posts

Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

#71

Post by sayhar »

zeitg3ist wrote: post #47
vorpalhex wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I don’t know about Wikimedia being super cautious when adopting technologies... I host a MediaWiki instance and there’s been a lot of “not so cautious” tech decisions in the past. Jumping early on the HHVM train (which they eventually had to leave); adopting Lua for wiki modules; developing Parsoid as a Node service (now rewritten in PHP)... None of these was the “safe option”; in some cases it worked out well but in…

What's wrong with HHVM? Honestly asking, I have no real context beyond knowing it is a FB invention

Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

#72

Post by clscott »

oconnor663 wrote: post #66
jancsika wrote: post #53

Anyone thinking of moving to their own Gitlab instance with Gitlab CE-- either stay on Github or prepare to waste your time dealing with user spam bots that pollute your site's search results. In other words-- if you want the common use case for a FOSS project: 1. publicly viewable main repository with publicly viewable issue tracker 2. requirement to log in to view all snippets, user profiles, perhaps even other rep…

Is it possible to configure a robots.txt file to accomplish #2?

No, robots.txt is for well behaving bots like bing bot and google bot, not bots that will spam your forums (and Git repo apparently).

Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

#73

Post by Buttons840 »

krelian wrote: post #68

I never checked out gitlab but the name always made it seem like a github copycat. If you want to differentiate your product why not choose a name that rings different to your competitor? And now I finally went and browsed some repositories and it's clear as that they were very much "inspired" but Github's design, it's practically a github clone, at least in that regard (although something is a bit off in the smoothn…

People wanted a decentralized GitHub. That's why they built it like GitHub, except decentralized.

Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

#74

Post by boogies »

krelian wrote: post #68

I never checked out gitlab but the name always made it seem like a github copycat. If you want to differentiate your product why not choose a name that rings different to your competitor? And now I finally went and browsed some repositories and it's clear as that they were very much "inspired" but Github's design, it's practically a github clone, at least in that regard (although something is a bit off in the smoothn…

If you think Gitlab’s a Github clone you must not have seen Gitea.

Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

#75

Post by globalproctd »

krelian wrote: post #68

I never checked out gitlab but the name always made it seem like a github copycat. If you want to differentiate your product why not choose a name that rings different to your competitor? And now I finally went and browsed some repositories and it's clear as that they were very much "inspired" but Github's design, it's practically a github clone, at least in that regard (although something is a bit off in the smoothn…

You could not be farther from the truth. Gitlab is an improvement on Github in every way, they offer a suite of features that Github doesn't have that are only available through third party connections.

Gitlab is not a Github clone.

Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

#76

Post by ganoushoreilly »

krelian wrote: post #68

I never checked out gitlab but the name always made it seem like a github copycat. If you want to differentiate your product why not choose a name that rings different to your competitor? And now I finally went and browsed some repositories and it's clear as that they were very much "inspired" but Github's design, it's practically a github clone, at least in that regard (although something is a bit off in the smoothn…

Both are just fancy wrappers and tools built around GIT. It's not surprising that one looks like the other. Given historic exoduses from one, it's only logical the other would build a similar toolset with the intention of allow for easy migrations between platforms.

While similar, the companies are different in the approaches, the platforms are different in their pricing (both having impacted the other which ultimately has helped consumers).

Your argument would hold true of any word processor. I think it's an unfair assessment of two products targeting the same specific users.

Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

#77

Post by gilrain »

krelian wrote: post #68

I never checked out gitlab but the name always made it seem like a github copycat. If you want to differentiate your product why not choose a name that rings different to your competitor? And now I finally went and browsed some repositories and it's clear as that they were very much "inspired" but Github's design, it's practically a github clone, at least in that regard (although something is a bit off in the smoothn…

That two services based on git have git in their names seems reasonable. That's the only commonality... "hub" and "lab" are both one syllable, but very different in sound and connotation.

Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

#79

Post by GordonS »

krelian wrote: post #68

I never checked out gitlab but the name always made it seem like a github copycat. If you want to differentiate your product why not choose a name that rings different to your competitor? And now I finally went and browsed some repositories and it's clear as that they were very much "inspired" but Github's design, it's practically a github clone, at least in that regard (although something is a bit off in the smoothn…

GitHub and GitLab, Gitea etc are all centred around git, so including "Git" in the name seems like an obvious, sensible even, idea.

Personally I don't think the GitLab UI looks that similar to GitHub's, and to me it looks and feels kind of clunky, and lacks contrast.

Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

#80

Post by 908B64B197 »

jancsika wrote: post #53

Anyone thinking of moving to their own Gitlab instance with Gitlab CE-- either stay on Github or prepare to waste your time dealing with user spam bots that pollute your site's search results. In other words-- if you want the common use case for a FOSS project: 1. publicly viewable main repository with publicly viewable issue tracker 2. requirement to log in to view all snippets, user profiles, perhaps even other rep…

I honestly can't see why someone would go through the trouble of making sure their instance is correctly configured and available when there are solutions (like GitHub) that just work out of the box.
Post reply on HN