Live data from Hacker News

Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

theregister.com

91–100 of 131 posts

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#91

I love GitLab and would like to support them, men $19 is just way too much for a solo dev. If they had a $5 for a "Pro"-tier I'd go for it.

Yeah, this had been the case for me.

Throw in a feature like epics or roadmaps and some CI time for $5/mo and I would have been on it, but $20/mo is too much for how few of the premium features I'd use. I'd just always assumed this tier didn't exist because the opportunity lost with long tail consumers was weighed up against the possible of business users downgrading to a lower tier. But then they could just go with the jetbrains model, and have the exact same tier have two different prices depending on whether the buyer is an individual or a business, if they're worried about that. Call it Gitlab Premium Personal or something.

That said, the youtube-dl github drama did push me into self hosting my private projects and mirrors of at-risk projects on Gitea, so that window has closed now. Also Gitea is a lot nicer than Gogs was the previous time I compared gitlab against other options. But gitlab is still for now my host for public projects.

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#92
post #23

Gitlab is great but they don't make money out of me and I'm not sure why. There is no reason for me to go to a paid account. There is no way that I could justify the cost to my boss. We have 5 slots for the team and only need 3. There is nothing that we'd gain from paying. If they said tomorrow that we had to pay $60 a month to get what we're getting now, then I'd say to my manager we need to pay for this or we won't…

Yep. We use it self-hosted but the only reason for us to pay would be to import groups (instead of just users) from LDAP. Hate to say that (and basic stuff like enforced approval flows) isn't worth $19/user/month...

Unfortunately, they know this, and as a result they've actually been making more and more user-hostile changes (like bumping features up to higher plans, introducing virtually all of their new features as premium, and just generally ignoring their supposed pricing and monetization strategy in favor of $$$).

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#94
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

selfhost something like gitea with drone And then set up the users Then set up the permissions And the hooks And move repos to it Then set up deployments, figuring out how to replace any missing Gitlab features Then update the docs that describe how the repo structure works for onboarding Etc etc Moving infrastructure is a couple of days work at least for a small team. If you factor than cost into it then it's rarely…

People are severely underestimating how complicated it is to host a private server, even if they go to self hosted gitlab which essentially the same. The amount of downtime, sudden server crash, problem with SSL with NAT, setting up gitlab runner, upgrading, etc. You'll need someone experienced enough and maybe even a dedicated infra role to handle those things

Outside the ~4 hours I spent setting up GitLab (for the first time) 3+ years ago, I've spent an average of perhaps 10 minutes per month maintaining it (and the runner on a separate server).

(And that's literally only because I choose to update it manually since it's usually offline for about 15-30 minutes during updates...)

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#95
post #45
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If they said tomorrow that we had to pay $60 a month to get what we're getting now 0 to 60 overnight sounds like a very disastrous thing for a company to do, like a big ol bait and switch. I would immediately stop using that company and find alternatives, and I am guessing it will be the same for a lot of people too. At 60usd a month for 5 people, a developer should be able to buy a few servers(~4) for less than $30…

selfhost something like gitea with drone And then set up the users Then set up the permissions And the hooks And move repos to it Then set up deployments, figuring out how to replace any missing Gitlab features Then update the docs that describe how the repo structure works for onboarding Etc etc Moving infrastructure is a couple of days work at least for a small team. If you factor than cost into it then it's rarely…

> Selfhost something like gitea with drone

I actually recently did just that, moving over everything from my self-hosted GitLab instance into Gitea, Drone CI and Nexus: https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/goodbye-gitlab-hello-gitea-... (the same would apply when moving from a cloud GitLab instance to the other self-hosted solutions)

Edit: fixed the link now.

Honestly, it wasn't so bad, given that I didn't couple what I had too tightly to the functionality of GitLab in particular - having an external issue tracker, though moving CI and build artifact storage systems can indeed necessitate porting them over (which was easy, given that I mostly use Dockerfiles and shell scripts for builds anyways) and cause additional work.

> And then set up the users; Then set up the permissions; And move repos to it

Thankfully, nowadays neither is too hard to do, given that there are pretty good migration scripts which will work, unless you're doing something very non-standard and peculiar. I migrated close to a 100 repositories with not a single failure, though perhaps that's also because I don't mess around with Git LFS after being burnt whilst trying to sync GitLab and GitHub repos with LFS data going into a black hole.

> And the hooks; Then set up deployments, figuring out how to replace any missing Gitlab features

The good thing here in particular was the fact that I use Docker for builds as mentioned before, so getting "docker build -t ... -f ... ." working across different build systems is generally pretty easy (except for Jenkins which is needlessly hard sometimes), especially when the software for the CI runner nodes themselves runs in Docker containers (with trusted code you can also just share the Docker socket, otherwise you probably want a DinD setup).

Deployments are also just telling another system (Portainer/Docker Swarm in my case; sometimes Helm for Kubernetes) that it should retrieve the latest build artifacts from some OCI compatible repo and run the new version of the application with any given configuration.

> Then update the docs that describe how the repo structure works for onboarding

I don't think that I've ever actually needed to change this, since while the UI itself does change (e.g. organizations vs groups), the actual contents of a particular repository itself remain the same. Might need to update an URL or two, but for the most part I saw no blockers here.

> Moving infrastructure is a couple of days work at least for a small team. If you factor than cost into it then it's rarely worthwhile.

It took me less than a day, total. But maybe that's because I've built a bit of a pipeline around running containers in my infrastructure and have the ingress/reverse proxy setup around them all established. Not to sound cocky, there are also caveats and things that I do agree with you in regards to pain points (below).

> And that's before any time lost to investigating and fixing outages, updating the software, and so on.

This is probably the bigger issue here, though. All of the sudden, the stability of it all is your responsibility. Now, in my case that wasn't such a change in circumstances because I started out with GitLab and with my limited hardware setup moving over to Gitea and friends was actually a win from a resiliency standpoint vs an integrated GitLab Omnibus install (that loves to eat RAM). For for anyone moving from the cloud to an on-prem infrastructure, this is definitely one of the main concerns.

That said, for many out there storing their code and other stuff in the cloud is a non-starter (e.g. certain government orgs or enterprises), which is where self-hosting can indeed be very helpful, though in most cases I've seen GitLab instances be used instead of Gitea. That said, Gitea is also an excellent option for anyone who just wants to embrace self-hosting out of principle or other reasons.

Being in control of your data is pretty cool (at least until you misconfigure something and everyone is in control of your data). That said, if you don't buy into the balkanization of software platforms nowadays too much and focus on the common standards of the systems instead, overall it's not as painful as one might think.

Of course, you can also pick a platform that's too hard to actually use and administer (which is why I switched away from GitLab) by yourself, but then the question becomes of why you're even using it in the first place. Honestly, GitLab is an excellent platform with amazing features, but handling updates and its hardware requirements wasn't fun: https://blog.kronis.dev/everything%20is%20broken/gitlab-upda...

Oh, also sometimes migrating data can be downright hellish, like when I tried migrating SVN to Git, with migration scripts not working due to non-standard repo layouts, which meant that I had to rewrite the layouts and history on the SVN end so things would actually work properly and those scripts wouldn't hang. Though it was ages ago and I haven't used SVN that much recently, Tortoise SVN was a nice piece of software though, RIP.

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#96
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If they said tomorrow that we had to pay $60 a month to get what we're getting now 0 to 60 overnight sounds like a very disastrous thing for a company to do, like a big ol bait and switch. I would immediately stop using that company and find alternatives, and I am guessing it will be the same for a lot of people too. At 60usd a month for 5 people, a developer should be able to buy a few servers(~4) for less than $30…

$60 is like 30-60min at a developer’s hourly rate.

> $60 is like 30-60min at a developer’s hourly rate.

More like 4 hours of my salary (~2100 euros per month after taxes), given that I live in Eastern Europe and work for a local company.

I think that there is definitely an interesting shift in opinions towards expenditure towards software, platforms and tools. The poorer a particular nation (and its developers) are on average, the more inclined everyone is towards a mindset of "doing instead of buying", given how their own time is comparatively less valuable than paying someone else to do it.

Then again, the same applies to the software that they use, personally I pay for the Ultimate package of all the JetBrains products (their IDEs are really good), but a lot of my acquaintances only use free software, or other means of acquiring it. Kind of why a lot of Russia and other countries over there (if you look eastwards) is running on pirated Windows machines.

Curiously, that's also why something like AWS is out of reach for me and instead I use local platforms like Time4VPS, or something like Hetzner/Scaleway/Contabo.

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#97
Regardless of reasons ( I'm sure there are some good ones ), this was a "small" mistake that reveals a lot.

I don't know if the people running Gitlab are dev/ops guys who found themselves running the ship or some high pedigree managers but this reveals an enormous blind spot on this group of people.

One of the major driving forces for humans is loss aversion. Doesn't matter the project is abandoned or some garbage you don't value, these guys are on the business of banking for code + services and they just announced to the world they can't be trusted as bankers.

I'm sure that wasn't what they were looking for and their monthly bill is big ( perhaps too big ), but setting fire to the whole thing isn't the right move.

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#98
post #73

There's a reason GitHub is the de facto host for OSS projects, I'd posit that open source maintainers who deliberately choose an unconventional host like GitLab already increase the barrier to contributions (not just due to network effects, but an unfamiliar UI, feature parity, poor performance etc) and this change would've already tipped the balance in my view and made it even clearer GitLab is not the right choice…

If you believe that it's important for free software to use free software infrastructure (and you should[0]), then there is no choice but to do so. Infrastructure like GitHub is primarily a function of network effects and the only way to overcome them is to cast your lot appropriately. A maintainer who "doesn't care" if their infrastructure is proprietary is not doing a good job. [0]: https://drewdevault.com/2022/03/…

Seems an awful lot like perfection being the enemy of good.

Github is and always has been a closed platform. It's also responsible for the largest explosion of open source activity from any single source in the last twenty years. Your argument relies on the assumption that the cost of migrating away from Github is a cost a FOSS project can pay and survive, which is a pretty heavy assumption as far as those things go. Even if the alternatives were comparable in UX, and they're not, there are entire ecosystems (Node, Golang, RubyGems, brew, etc.) that explicitly depend on Github. If you measure your software's success by any metric other than how well it aligns to your ethics, it's hard to justify anything but Github for a FOSS project.

Most people, IME, write FOSS software so people can find and use it. I remember the era when SourceForge was more-or-less the best thing you could hope for as far as central repositories were concerned, but they weren't much more than free static web hosting. I remember how difficult it was to contribute to Apache projects because figuring out their esoteric source control and patch process was so daunting. I remember googling for software packages to use and not having an easy route to quickly gauge whether its quality was worth investing further research. I wouldn't like to go back to a world where everything was hosted on free software if it means losing all the knowledge that exists in that one place.

There definitely seem like more important windmills to tilt at than pointing at the engine that drives the entire FOSS ecosystem and saying it's not good enough by the most stringent of ethical standards.

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#99
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A maintainer who "doesn't care" if their infrastructure is proprietary is not doing a good job. This isn't to mention also the issues regarding code ownership, where GitHub now trains their Co-Pilot AI on code under any license. > Note that GitLab is not really the answer to this problem. It's open core, subservient to its investors, and pulls a lot of stupid shit like this. Even if GitLab pulled out on their payed…

Regarding copilot training issue, I wonder if they can just train on any open-source projects that they can access, e.g. projects in SourceHut. I remember their argument is that their training is considered fair use, legal/moral questions aside, doesn't it means that they can also justify using projects hosted on alternative platforms for training?

i am training my brain on the back of the hapless and poor authors like lee child and j.k rowling that i got off of piratebay. why do those "pesky rights" holders release their dogs after me?

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#100

I've had open source projects be dormant for 10 years only to get a question pop up out of the blue from someone who found it useful. I hope that Gitlab and other hosts of the open source community think hard about this before implementing any policy like this. There are projects that are useful, and stable, but for whatever reason do not have a lot of users. There is no reason to let those projects die, or force the…

The crux of the issue is that Gitlab is a commercial enterprise so at one point it is reasonable for them not to want to host dormant projects for free when it costs them money to do that.

In fact, even if they weren't a commercial enterprise they would still need to balance the books in order to survive.

Post reply on HN