321–330 of 408 posts
I'll generally support using gitlab over github on principle, but have found gitlab to be basically useless without javascript enabled while github still kind of works at least for read-only visiting of shared github URLs. Whenever someone shares a gitlab URL with me, it's very rare I can make any use of it without enabling js, it's quite annoying.
I 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 synchronizatio…
I'm pretty sure most of the anti-gerrit sentiment at wikimedia was about gerrit as a code review tool.
My personal experience with it (as a mediawiki developer) is gerrit has a lot of UI bugs (although it has gotten better). I also suspect it encourages a code review culture that is overly nitpicky and risk averse (but perhaps that is just cultural forces at wikimedia)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Appreciate the response - I'll look into now
Okay, thank you. I see Gitlab is mostly Ruby. Just to get a general idea of the code this is a simple PHP function to use it: https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/gwolle-gb/trunk/f... That function can be called when the register form has been submitted. It will return true or false. Forget about the transient stuff, that is just WordPres caching stuff. You don't need an API key like with Akismet. You would onl…
I 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 synchronizatio…
Gerrit is the one where each "pull request" has to be a single commit, right? I'm not particularly happy about GitHub, but I think it's less about GH and more about workflow and source code evolution, and I'm not sure if Gerrit solves anything here. First, PRs being heavyweight encourages large branches instead of smaller incremental changes. Secondly, a large change (such as a big new feature) ends up living in a br…
Yes, but you can have changesets depend on each other, so its not that big a deal. (But you ca end up in rebase hell if you do that). You also get a version history of all the different versions of your commit.
Ancedotally, during my use of gerrit, i never really wished to have multiple commits on a single changeset.
> I'd prefer to merge as soon as something is accepted and use master at the main development branch
That's what Wikimedia did, mostly. (There were weekly deployment branches but it was unusual to have something in master but reverted out of the deploy branch). It seemed to mostly work fine afaik (of course i wasnt on the team doing deploys, for all i know they might have horror stories)
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 wonder how effective QuestyCaptcha would be on GitLab.
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…
> 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. A few paragraphs I recently wrote elsewhere: The entire state of code forges as a general thing in 2020 is all the evidence you could possibly want that version control systems (Git, I'm talking about Git) are themselves massively deficient in desi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know this because in our forum we have LOTS of "spam" users - https://forum.cloudron.io/users . These users will go into posts and actually make "helpful" comments. Like, "Oh I tried this solution but I found that my disk my full. Deleting data fixed my problem". It almost seems genuine but they build reputation and once they have some votes, they go back and edit all the comments to have links.
Banning entire countries helps a lot. I don't want to name certain countries, but let's assume it's one where it's common to see human corpses floating on a big river.
1. Ban a burgeoning tech industry which has produced over 20 unicorns,receives billions in funding from across the world and produces world-class tech talent; 2. Ban millions of other OSS developers from contributing; and 3. Just lead to SEO spammers picking out other impoverished countries to spam from, which means finally you'll end up with only people from the "west" being able to contribute in any way.
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…
Let's not kid ourselves here, it's because GH is owned by MS.
Its because GH is not available as self-hosted open source. Doesn't matter who owns it. Github was discussed and rejected by wikimedia back in 2012 as well, which was before MS bought them
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The git-review [1] tool makes it trivial to interface with Gerrit (it's likely packaged for your distro, see [2]). I've found many people struggling with Gerrit don't know about it and it has made their life significantly easier. It handles all the magic of pushing to refs so that you never need to know about it. You drop a .gitreview in your project and then your work-flow is literally $ git checkout -b my-feature-b…