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

91–100 of 408 posts

Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

#91

Post by tantalic »

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…

I think it's fair to say that a few years ago GitLab was very much inspired by Github's design. However the project has had a focus on adding additional, tightly-integrated features and I'd say in the last couple of years Github has been more inspired by GitLab than the other way around.

Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

#92

Post by sytse »

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…

At GitLab Inc. we have a Trust and Safety team https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/security/opera... that prevents spam.

So far that functionality has lived in separate repositories from the core codebase since few people needed it, the cycle time was quicker, and it is an advantage to not have the spammers see the code.

If there is strong interest in collaborating on this I'm sure they will be happy to engage. I'll ask them how best to structure this.

Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

#93

Post by parliament32 »

badrequest wrote: post #34
q3k wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't mind the Gerrit UX - it seems to be optimized for daily use by programmers, not for onboarding speed. That's a tradeoff I'm very much okay with.

You're okay with the tool being difficult to use because you already know how to use it.

"Because it's hard" is a bad reason to shy away from something.

Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

#94

Post by [deleted] »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #60
bastardoperator wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can self host GitHub too

If you pay the enterprise fee, which is likely an X amount per seat. They MIGHT give it out for free to Wikimedia as a favor / goodwill, but there will be strings attached. (I'm not saying Gitlab doesn't have strings attached)

[deleted]

Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

#95

Post by gravypod »

YorickPeterse wrote: post #43
gravypod wrote: post #7

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?

The repository storage size is 10GB [1]. I wouldn't consider that "extremely small". [1]: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/gitlab_com/index.html#accoun...

That's for container registry, packages, code, artifacts, everything. I have a single project in my monorepo that produces a 512MB binary file and stores it as an asset. In 20 CI runs, assuming there was 0 code in repo or anywhere else, we'd use up the entire budget. We make more than 20 commits/day.

Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

#96

Post by driverdan »

mxskelly wrote: post #55
celeritascelery wrote: post #13

it was interesting to read their reasons for not using github, especially related to no control over bans or sanctions. Microsoft could pull the rug out from under them at any time if they got pressure from somebody like China.

Oh right yeah pressure from China, like what got youtube-dl entirely removed... Oh wait no that was the US government.

I downvoted you because it wasn't the government that filed the takedown. Perhaps you mean "a private company using laws enacted by the US government?"

Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

#97

Post by throw_m239339 »

lanevorockz wrote: post #78

Microsoft will slowly kill github

Depends. MS used to have its own code hosting service (Codeplex I believe), and it wasn't that bad, but Github was more "social".

I think it's mostly a question of how independent Github will be under MS. Now to be fair, MS has good services. Azure is nice, and office 365 is pretty good.

Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

#98

Post by paulryanrogers »

908B64B197 wrote: post #80
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.

Control. Github can change the behavior, pricing, availability, or security of their offerings at any time. If they get hacked then you could suffer. GH is also closed source.

For many a self hosted solution is better, despite the costs.

Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

#99

Post by jancsika »

clscott wrote: post #72
oconnor663 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

That's right. I'm talking about SEO spam. Basically anything that has a url where the content includes input from the user will be spammed.

I'm fine with, say, the spammers hammering the main repo's merge requests and issue tracker. Those are things any healthy project will check regularly-- I'm even fine just pruning the spam there by hand (and historically I haven't gotten a lot there anyway).

But I don't regularly look at the global view of snippets, and I don't want to regularly prune the global user list for SEO spam in the user profiles. There's no good reason most FOSS projects need those things to be publicly viewable, anyway. But AFAICT Gitlab's admin settings only have a single setting that affects all these things across the board. So if you make snippets viewable only to logged in users, then nobody can clone from the main repo without logging in.

It's quite frustrating, and Gitlab shows no interest in disabling or hiding features like snippets and user profiles.

Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab

#100

Post by frenchyatwork »

rock_hard wrote: post #61
nwah1 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What features do you think Gitlab lacks compared to GitHub? I haven't used the CI/CD features of either, but PR/MR features seem comparable. Is it the advanced workflow stuff and CI/CD integration where GitHub is better? Bots? I think git in general should copy the approach of Fossil and include issue management and wikis along with the repo, to keep things consistent and avoid vendor lock-in. But I would be a lot mo…

Gitlab is worse on almost every angle compared to Github It simply lacks the attention to detail...you can tell that Github walks the extra mile to get the UX right. We used Gitlab for a year and then migrated to Github...it’s a joy!

Having used both a fair bit, I don't know what you're talking about. If anything my experience has been the opposite. Gitlab had the second mover advantage on a few things, while Github's interface has some weird oddities that seem to stem from the fact that that's how they've always been.
Post reply on HN