251–258 of 258 posts
What has really bothered me about Gitlab is that everytime Github copies a feature, there's a testy blog post about "we did it first!" when Gitlab as a business is a copy of Github.
And Github is a copy of Sourceforge, which is inevitably a copy of someone else. Source code hosting as a business isn’t new, it just needs to be executed well.
I'll admit that I was wrong about GitLab. I had the chance to invest in them way back in the day, and passed. My thought at the time was that no open source company had ever been super successful except RedHat, which was more of an outlier than a pattern. And my other thought was that they are competing against GitHub, which was extremely popular and well funded. I honestly didn't think they stood a chance. I'm happy…
> no open source company had ever been super successful... I guess the trick is for it to also be a SaaS offering that no one wants to host themselves or whose moat isn't the time to write the code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I prefer to use Intellij now for reviews. How can people review any kind of code in that PR web UI ? I mean I used to do it but not anymore
Would be very curious about your thoughts on Reviewpad ( https://reviewpad.com ). The interactions you have on the IDE are very different than a tool that was specifically made for code reviews.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What else do they need to do to gain some kind of trust? Stop doing shady shit. The whole .NET Foundation kerfuffle from last week... Or concerns about how Copilot trains its data... I like some of the open source work they do. It's nice that they opensourced LSP and built VSCode. I like some of the language research they do (their contributions to Haskell, Pony and F* more or less originated there, plus their main…
Like any big company, they have no ideology beyond making money. That actually makes it easy to trust them in a certain sense: they're not going to do things that don't benefit them, but they're not going to do something utterly crazy the way ideology-driven organizations can. I agree that the main reason they're doing good things for developers is to get developers on board. But that doesn't negate that they're doin…
I do not believe that Microsoft is fundamentally on board with the open source model. Its an alliance of convenience. If suddenly they think they can make more money some other way, they'll do that. They might not even actually destroy anything explicitly, merely ruin things out of indifference.
I'll admit that I was wrong about GitLab. I had the chance to invest in them way back in the day, and passed. My thought at the time was that no open source company had ever been super successful except RedHat, which was more of an outlier than a pattern. And my other thought was that they are competing against GitHub, which was extremely popular and well funded. I honestly didn't think they stood a chance. I'm happy…
I think if GitHub simply gave free private repos sooner, GitLab would’ve had a way harder time.
I haven't used gitlab much, but I was shocked to hear GitHub's CTO (at the time of the interview, he has moved on since) state that GitHub didn't consider them a competitor. "I do think that people still, to this day, think of GitLab as one of our main competitors, and I never have ever saw GitLab as a competitor." https://www.lastweekinaws.com/podcast/screaming-in-the-cloud... Anyone have thoughts on that? Or pointe…
I think the CTO's reasoning comes from that while GitLab is competitive in terms of usage and features (actually offering a more complete CI experience imo), it's influence is still relatively miniscule in comparison to GitHub. I wouldn't be surprised if you tried asking random people in public or in a university whether they know GitHub or GitLab and came to the conclusion that GitLab basically does not exist for ma…
When I first heard of GitLab, I assumed it was GitHub's "experimental" playground where they test features before deploying it on GitHub ... the power of branding ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GitHub's CI pipelines are behind GitLab? My lord, here I was thinking about moving to GitHub Enterprise when our subscription expires because everything in GitLab feels like an unfinished weekend project. Seems like nobody can get anywhere near the functionality of Jenkins.
And here I am planning on replacing Jenkins with GitLab CI.. do you really think Jenkins is better? Do you have any examples or thoughts you can share?
Then there's dependencies between jobs which has gotten better lately but again it seems less developed compared to Jenkins. I also managed to kill the web UI with some of my pipelines when using dependent jobs because the javascript fails somewhere deep when trying to visualise the pipeline and the page just stays blank.
Honestly it really depends on what you're doing. If you're mostly replacing automated builds and tests triggered by git changes then GitLab works just fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GitLab has already turned into "The Homer". It has hundreds (thousands?) of features, but if you stray away from the core git functionality you'll very quickly realise they're pretty bad. I've always seen GitLab as a useful tool for smaller companies where you can use it to replace several other applications (e.g. JIRA, Jenkins, or wiki), but if your company already has those established it all becomes somewhat usele…
Have you read the GitLab S-1? They have great retention with larger companies. Can you substantiate any of your claims? (FYI I have no horse in this race, I evaluated GH vs GL recently and decided to stay on GH for now)