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

Gitlab S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 295 posts

Re: Gitlab S-1

#91

Post by base698 »

dcchambers wrote: post #38

I haven't personally had a compelling enough reason to move from GitHub to GitLab, so I mostly just use it to mirror a couple of my repos there in case people prefer to browse various open source projects via GitLab. Regardless, I think competition in the space is a great thing. GitLab has come a long way and there are certain things I really like about the company. For example, I love how they tend to do everything…

To me it was very compelling before GitHub actions and only slightly compelling now.

Re: Gitlab S-1

#92

Post by shortstuffsushi »

nawgz wrote: post #77
easton wrote: post #48

So GitLab is advertising that it's the one place to do the entire software development lifecycle. Are there any big shops that have converted to 100% (or almost 100%) GitLab? Out of the six big names they list on their website, the only one that they have a case study for is Thomson Reuters, and they used Jenkins for CI (and it's from 2017, so a lot of this other functionality wasn't built yet). It's just a somewhat…

I am not a big shop - I work on a team on the order of 10 We use GitLab as our "one place to do the entire software development lifecycle". It's a really good CI/CD runner in my opinion, the .gitlab-ci.yml files are expressive and enable reuse thru a pretty nice inheritance model, and integrating new service (container) builds is literally 4 lines of code to have every push build a new container and put it in GitLab…

> we can drop 4 lines into an JS/TS repo and have it publish

Could you talk a bit about this, or link out to any docs they've got for this? I'm curious about setting that up

Re: Gitlab S-1

#93

Post by marc__1 »

From page 135 you have what it may be consider one of the most ambitious founder-performance compensation plans ever. The latest tranche, to be observed between 2027 and 2030, will be granted if the share price of Gitlab reaches $500, or 26x the price per share of the most recent fundraising (Series E at $18.6294 per share)

Here is the text if anyone cares fo cmd+F: "The following table indicates the price hurdle and the corresponding performance period in which that hurdle must be achieved and the service vesting date upon which the corresponding vesting is contingent"

Re: Gitlab S-1

#94

Post by mikysco »

alberth wrote: post #36

I realize plenty of tech companies IPO and aren’t profitable. But it seems scary to be losing more money than what you generated in total revenues. REVENUE: 2021: $152m (loss of $192m) 2020: $81m (loss of $130m) EDIT: reworded for clarity.

The overwhelming majority of high-growth technology companies recognize a net revenue loss going into IPO. The purpose of the IPO and prior VC rounds is to finance a strong company & product, and more importantly, help win enough market share early enough in the sector's lifecycle to recognize a full or partial monopoly over the space.

The fact Gitlab are recognizing a loss at IPO could have been predicted at the company's inception.

Re: Gitlab S-1

#95

Post by rickosborne »

easton wrote: post #48

So GitLab is advertising that it's the one place to do the entire software development lifecycle. Are there any big shops that have converted to 100% (or almost 100%) GitLab? Out of the six big names they list on their website, the only one that they have a case study for is Thomson Reuters, and they used Jenkins for CI (and it's from 2017, so a lot of this other functionality wasn't built yet). It's just a somewhat…

Obligatory: My statements are my own and do not reflect the opinions of my employer. I'm not going to name that employer, but let's be honest, I can't stop you from figuring it out if you really want.

> Are there any big shops that have converted to 100% (or almost 100%) GitLab?

We use a combination of GitHub, GitLab, and Azure DevOps across the various SW Eng orgs in our company.

On GH, we split across both GitHub.com and internal GitHub Enterprise instances. There's been some shift to put everything on GH.com, but GH Actions for private repos are kind of busted, and it's really causing us problems. Staying on GHE is less painful for some of our orgs. Some teams use Jenkins instead of Actions, which is, as the kids say, "a whole mood".

Our GitLab-using orgs generally have tighter CD integration. As much as I prefer the GH UX, I have to admit GL has a much smaller gap between "I have an idea" and "my implementation is now CI-ed, CD-ed, and published to Artifactory".

Our ADO using orgs have an even smaller gap. Seriously. If you've never used ADO, you'd be impressed by how easy it is to get a full build pipeline set up in minutes. That is, as long as you stay on the garden path. These teams also have the hardest struggles when they stray off the path. (But my intuition here is that this isn't definitively an ADO problem and might actually come down to the skill sets of those teams.)

All told, we're several hundred engineers across these solutions. By my rough count, the total number using GitLab may be a hundred or so. They really like it, and it suits them very well.

(And before anyone says "omg why do you have so many solutions", the Eng efforts at our company are thoroughly distributed instead of consolidated. And, at least at an executive level, there's currently more faith in "right tool for the job" than in "alignment". For now.)

Re: Gitlab S-1

#96

Post by chx »

benatkin wrote: post #71

I'm grateful to GitLab for providing an alternative to GitHub, and an open source one. It's an open core product with the community edition providing a lot of value. Here are some community hosted instances: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/List_of_Community-Hosted_GitL... The CI system is quite powerful, and Travis CI's struggles before and after acquisition has shown that it's hard to host a major CI platform. I hope…

Who can edit that page? https://git.drupalcode.org/

Re: Gitlab S-1

#97

Post by jcdavis »

TradingPlaces wrote: post #65
jcdavis wrote: post #59

Was wondering why their FY21 costs where much higher than first half of this year, this probably explains it: > Stock-based compensation expense for fiscal 2020 and 2021, and six months ended July 31, 2021 includes $32.7 million, $103.8 million, and $0.3 million, respectively, of compensation expense related to secondary stock sales described in Note 16 to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in t…

Stock based compensation is compensation at the expense of current shareholders. It’s not free money.

Absolutely agreed, but events like one-off secondaries can somewhat distort the numbers in that they put costs that should be amortized over many in years into a single quarter. You see similar at big cos 6mos after IPO when everything vests.

Re: Gitlab S-1

#98

Post by mikeyouse »

yunohn wrote: post #83
zndr wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can actually see their salary calculator here https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation...

Are you able to actually use the calculator? You’ve linked the documentation page for it, but the actual tool seems restricted.

You can't see the calculator, but you can see most of the inputs - for this discussion, the factors that weigh on the location-based adjustments are here:

https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation...

Re: Gitlab S-1

#99

Post by Wronnay »

Last valuation was $6 billion, they initially wanted to go public in November of 2020 but because of COVID they delayed it.

Doesn't sound cheap to me for a company who isn't profitable yet...

(Microsoft payed 7,5 billion for GitHub and I think we can all agree that GitLab isn't used as much so nearly the same valuations seems a bit high too me)

Re: Gitlab S-1

#100

Post by nexuist »

marc__1 wrote: post #93

From page 135 you have what it may be consider one of the most ambitious founder-performance compensation plans ever. The latest tranche, to be observed between 2027 and 2030, will be granted if the share price of Gitlab reaches $500, or 26x the price per share of the most recent fundraising (Series E at $18.6294 per share) Here is the text if anyone cares fo cmd+F: "The following table indicates the price hurdle and…

Maybe they're counting on inflation ;)
Post reply on HN