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

CircleCI Announces Support for Gitlab

circleci.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 124 posts

Re: CircleCI Announces Support for Gitlab

#51

Post by ollien »

pojzon wrote: post #42
mtlynch wrote: post #6

I've been a CircleCI customer for 3 years. I'm interested in moving from Github to Gitlab, as I'm philosophically more aligned with Gitlab. I tried out CircleCI's Gitlab integration a few weeks ago during the public beta, and it felt like CircleCI was really phoning it in. The instructions led me down paths where the product would just break. It told me to connect CircleCI to Gitlab through OAuth, and then my first b…

In case you consider Gitlab as an e2e solution or devops platform as a whole: Why would you need CircleCI? Gitlab can work as a full CICD platform.

Can Gitlab CI use CircleCI workflows? There's less risk in just changing your VCS platform, rather than both your VCS and CI/CD at once, especially if you have to rewrite all your workflows.

Obviously something like Dagger[1] solves this, but I don't know how widely used that is at this point.

[1] https://dagger.io/

Re: CircleCI Announces Support for Gitlab

#52

Post by bloppe »

mtlynch wrote: post #18
candiddevmike wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it mean to be more philosophically aligned with one corporation vs another?

I like many things Gitlab does: open-sources most of their product, publishes their documentation openly, promotes remote work. I strongly dislike some of the things that Github does: suck up open-source code and re-sell it through Copilot, stifle competition by offering free services that their non-MS-owned competitors can't afford to offer. I don't think either one is purely good or purely evil. Overall, I like bot…

The co-pilot concern I get. I think the root of the problem is that everybody seems to have almost signed away their copyright to GitHub as part of their terms of service: https://fossa.com/blog/analyzing-legal-implications-github-c... "If you look at the GitHub Terms of Service, no matter what license you use, you give GitHub the right to host your code and to use your code to improve their products and features"... yeesh

I don't really agree with the concern that they "stifle competition by offering free services that their non-MS-owned competitors can't afford to offer". GitLab is clearly able to differentiate with with their terms of service, as evidenced by your and others' comments here. I don't fault the vast majority of FOSS developers, especially those using permissive MIT-style licenses, for favoring cost-efficiency over control. It's good to have both options.

Re: CircleCI Announces Support for Gitlab

#53

Post by jacooper »

thinkafterbef wrote: post #48
judge2020 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related, GitHub has had 'use more powerful hosted runners' in the pipeline for over 2 years[0]. This issue replaced another now-deleted issue[1] from July 2020. Really disappointing, as I've had to resort to using `az vm start` -> run -> `az vm deallocate` to use an on-demand powerful runner. 0: https://github.com/github/roadmap/issues/161 1: https://github.com/github/roadmap/issues/95 (note: added `ga` `ae` and remo…

I'm a bit biased as one of the founders of BuildJet, but we solve this exact issue. BuildJet for GitHub Actions, plugs elegantly into GitHub Actions. With 1-line change in your config, you get 2x speed for half of GitHub's price. Check it out @ https://buildjet.com/for-github-actions

Quick question, why does every startup on earth have google as a customer? Shouldn't a company of this size have its own solutions and programs?

This is in no way a deg against your project, its just a general question .

Re: CircleCI Announces Support for Gitlab

#54

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew »

mtlynch wrote: post #18
candiddevmike wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it mean to be more philosophically aligned with one corporation vs another?

I like many things Gitlab does: open-sources most of their product, publishes their documentation openly, promotes remote work. I strongly dislike some of the things that Github does: suck up open-source code and re-sell it through Copilot, stifle competition by offering free services that their non-MS-owned competitors can't afford to offer. I don't think either one is purely good or purely evil. Overall, I like bot…

I feel GitHub is the best thing that ever happened to the Open Source Community.

Before, it was freshmeat and, for collaboration, arbitrary mailing lists each enforcing their same "standards" to send in patches. I can only assume the process was sometimes smooth, sometimes terrible. In any case: I never did it.

In the GitHub era, I have regularly made pull requests. Small ones on a maybe weekly basis, larger ones twice a year or so.

I feel confident in the estimate that the number of contributors has grown by at least an order of magnitude, and that GitHub was a significant factor in this development.

Gitlab, meanwhile, started out as so obvious a clone their CSS still had classes named "gh-large-..." months after launch. Then, they would frequently have the audacity to complain when GitHub copied some minor feature they had first implemented.

Re: CircleCI Announces Support for Gitlab

#55

Post by forty »

soneca wrote: post #41
mtlynch wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fair, but I think Gitlab promotes it more strongly. They're 100% remote, and they publish guides teaching other companies how to replicate their remote-first setup: https://about.gitlab.com/company/culture/all-remote/guide/

Gitlab advocates for paying local salaries. That’s actually against my “philosophy“ as you put it, as it is against my direct interest, being a non-US based software developer. Their way to promote remote work is, ironically, hurtful to my prospects as a remote worker.

Overpaying remote workers compared to the local market is bad as it create distortion of local markets (on housing especially where local non remote workers cannot afford living where they work).

(I'm a remote worker outside of the US and my personal interest would be to be paid more, but I don't believe it would be the general interest)

Re: CircleCI Announces Support for Gitlab

#56

Post by gmemstr »

As an ex-CircleCI employee, this is really exciting because it marks a pretty significant milestone in a particular internal effort. Very much looking forward to what comes after this.

This might strike some as a weird event (Gitlab already has CI/CD!), but it _was_ highly requested and is (probably) of other similar things coming to fruition!

Re: CircleCI Announces Support for Gitlab

#57

Post by dijit »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #54
mtlynch wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like many things Gitlab does: open-sources most of their product, publishes their documentation openly, promotes remote work. I strongly dislike some of the things that Github does: suck up open-source code and re-sell it through Copilot, stifle competition by offering free services that their non-MS-owned competitors can't afford to offer. I don't think either one is purely good or purely evil. Overall, I like bot…

I feel GitHub is the best thing that ever happened to the Open Source Community. Before, it was freshmeat and, for collaboration, arbitrary mailing lists each enforcing their same "standards" to send in patches. I can only assume the process was sometimes smooth, sometimes terrible. In any case: I never did it. In the GitHub era, I have regularly made pull requests. Small ones on a maybe weekly basis, larger ones twi…

Github is social media for code; which is great for discovering things or fly-by addons..

Social media in the workplace is not as great, ask anyone using facebooks communication platform: https://www.workplace.com

I much prefer working with gitlab as a product 9hours a day on internal systems.

Re: CircleCI Announces Support for Gitlab

#58

Post by jrockway »

AtNightWeCode wrote: post #23

How can a CI-service not support ANY GIT source? All this garbage surrounding GIT is just baffling.

I doubt there was a problem cloning GitLab-hosted repos on CircleCI before this announcement. But there are plenty of non-Git things that these hosts do; pull requests, status checks, etc. I am guessing that "support for ..." entails all of those extras.

Re: CircleCI Announces Support for Gitlab

#59

Post by stusmall »

thinkafterbef wrote: post #48
judge2020 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related, GitHub has had 'use more powerful hosted runners' in the pipeline for over 2 years[0]. This issue replaced another now-deleted issue[1] from July 2020. Really disappointing, as I've had to resort to using `az vm start` -> run -> `az vm deallocate` to use an on-demand powerful runner. 0: https://github.com/github/roadmap/issues/161 1: https://github.com/github/roadmap/issues/95 (note: added `ga` `ae` and remo…

I'm a bit biased as one of the founders of BuildJet, but we solve this exact issue. BuildJet for GitHub Actions, plugs elegantly into GitHub Actions. With 1-line change in your config, you get 2x speed for half of GitHub's price. Check it out @ https://buildjet.com/for-github-actions

Oh this is good. I couldn't find it in your documentation but how big are the disks on these VMs?

Re: CircleCI Announces Support for Gitlab

#60

Post by Benjamin_Dobell »

forty wrote: post #55
soneca wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gitlab advocates for paying local salaries. That’s actually against my “philosophy“ as you put it, as it is against my direct interest, being a non-US based software developer. Their way to promote remote work is, ironically, hurtful to my prospects as a remote worker.

Overpaying remote workers compared to the local market is bad as it create distortion of local markets (on housing especially where local non remote workers cannot afford living where they work). (I'm a remote worker outside of the US and my personal interest would be to be paid more, but I don't believe it would be the general interest)

This line of reasoning doesn't consider equity, and the fact that people want to move - especially out of low socioeconomic areas. If you're paid a local wage, there's basically no way you'd ever be able to relocate to somewhere more expensive since selling your house wouldn't put a dent in the price of a home elsewhere.
Post reply on HN