Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Create user account 2. Create spam content (snippets, profile, etc.) 3. Get spam content search indexed 4. Profit
a free user sign up is not going to prevent scraping...
The problem isn't scraping, it's spam.
Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab
111–120 of 408 posts
Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can self host GitHub too
It's not open source, at best they ship you a locked down VM image to run yourself. Edit: Confirmed, "GitHub Enterprise is delivered as a virtual appliance that includes all software required to get up and running. The only additional software required is a compatible virtual machine environment." https://enterprise.github.com/faq
This is not true, they publish the code at https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab.
If you want to use premium features, you do have to pay to unlock them, and depending on your deployment you would need to get the gitlab-ee image instead of the gitlab-ce one.
Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab
#113I 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 don't want to sound pedantic but this comment makes you look extremely ignorant and unaware of this space and its solutions, use cases, etc. Basically you sound completely oblivious of what's going on here.
If today was the first day that you saw GitLab, perhaps you don't have the domain knowledge to make any of this claims. Nothing you said here makes sense. The Git as a prefix in the name is just a technicality, the same way I could create an operating system called YeahOS and everyone would understand that OS is a suffix that blends into the branding.
But what makes you sound particularly ignorant it's calling GitLab a clone of Github. They are both git platforms, that's it. By that metric BitBucket, Gitea, Gogs, CodeCommit, Phabricator, etc., are all clones of GitHub.
If anything, recent GitHub functionalities like GitHub Actions are a clone of mature GitLab functionality like GitLab's CI.
Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab
#114Anyone 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…
In general settings, you can check "Public" under "Restricted visibility levels". According to the blurb, "selected levels cannot be used by non-admin users for groups, projects or snippets". Is that not what you want with #2?
It's what I want for #2, but it has the unfortunate side-effect of restricting visibility for my main public repo. My #1 goal above is for people to be able to clone from my main repo without logging in.
Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab
#115Earlier 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!
Interesting... we used GHE for 7 years and have now switched to gitlab. Gitlab CI, container repos, and Kubernetes integration has been amazing.
Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab
#116I think I have some relevant experience here.
We host all of our projects on github:
https://github.com/sqlalchemy/
yet we also use gerrit!
https://gerrit.sqlalchemy.org/
users send us pull requests, and they never have to deal with Gerrit ever. We use a custom integration, the source code to which is here: https://github.com/sqlalchemyorg/publishthing/tree/master/pu... and then we mostly bidirectional synchronization between Gerrit and Github pull requests (code changes can move freely from Github PR -> gerrit, comments and code review comments are posted bidirectionally, Gerrit status changes are synchronized into the PR - example: https://github.com/sqlalchemy/sqlalchemy/pull/5662
I continue to find Gerrit's code review to be vastly better than Githubs. Gitlab would take tremendous server resources to run internally and I like Github much better for the front-facing experience.
I wrote about an earlier form of our integration here: https://techspot.zzzeek.org/2016/04/21/gerrit-is-awesome/
to sum up:
1. your project benefits massively by being on Github
2. Gerrit is awesome (for me)
3. gitlab is not very appealing to me UX-wise and self-hosting wise
4. you can still use pull requests from outside users and use gerrit for code reviews.
Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab
#117Anyone 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…
Hi! I'm the PM at GitLab who works on Snippets, so thanks for providing this feedback. We do have Recaptcha support which can be configured - are you seeing these kinds of issues with that enabled/configured?
One item that is on the roadmap that is coming and may be of interest is `Optional Admin Approval for local user sign up` - https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/4491.
I'm not in the group working on that, but it does appear to be coming soon and would limit the ability of newly created accounts from doing anything until they're approved.
Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab
#118I 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…
The important difference is that GitLab is open source! That's a bit like critizing LibreOffice for "copying" MS Office and using the word "Office" in its name.
Hi, Developer Evangelist at GitLab here.
GitLab Core is open source which is the base for the Community Edition. The paid tiers are based on Core and add Enterprise licensed proprietary code, following our open core business model.
More about our Open Source stewardship: https://about.gitlab.com/company/stewardship/
Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
I much prefer the model of force-pushing your development branch to create change sets. It lets you more easily see how development evolves in response to feedback. And the final state of the branch which gets merged leaves all the in-progress work that no one cares about behind only in Gerrit. With Github/lab's model, if you force push your PR, you lose the ability to view its previous state and diff against that. A…
> With Github/lab's model, if you force push your PR, you lose the ability to view its previous state and diff against that. That's not quite true. Gitlab lets you compare any two "versions" of the force pushed branch.
Thanks. I haven’t used gitlab. I assumed it worked the same as GitHub. That’s good to know.
Re: Wikimedia is moving to Gitlab
#120Anyone 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…
Can you say more about how it's a problem if people can view things without logging in? Naively I would have seen that as a plus.
Anything visible without login will be visible to people who want to follow a bare URL to your tracker and visible to a search engine crawler, making it visible to people without a URL who just search for the issue. That is, indeed, a plus.
But even if you require login to post stuff to the issue tracker, creating a login and posting a comment has been trivially automated.
You're no longer running a useful issue tracker, you're running a free ad network: you're hosting a dozen useful issues and a thousand advertisements and blackhat SEO comments for spammers.
If it's not visible to search engines, and your repo doesn't get much traffic, it's not nearly as valuable to spammers. It's kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face, but those basic economics of cost to spammers, cost to users, value to spammers, and value to users are the only rules that you can really apply when hosting content on the Internet.