131–140 of 239 posts
There's also Gitbucket which has as similar advantage: https://github.com/takezoe/gitbucket
I found gitbucket after trying (unsuccessfully) to run gitlab on my 512mb RAM VM. It has satisfied all the needs of our small group, which is essentially keeping a visual track of our git repos and permissions.
"You could certainly purchase access to private Github repositories, but most certainly you’d rather want to invest your capital in more pressing matters."
That's their #1 reason? GitHub is, like, $7. If that saves you 10 minutes of having to maintain your own servers? Completely seems worth it to me. Or, GitLab or BitBucket have free private repos.
My argument is this: your time is the most important thing you have, and you shouldn't be wasting your time on maintaining your own source control servers.
Why are they not dogfooding? If they will use Github to develop Gogs, the potential audience may think why they should not use Github itself. I am not trying to put them down, it's very difficult to dog food when your product is in its early state but their page suggests that they already support Issue Tracking. I think it is in a state where they can use Gogs to develop Gogs. This will ensure that they work on those…
They don't support issue tracking yet. Not really something you'd want for the development process.
I'm interested in Gogs because gitlab seems to have trouble servicing multiple requests, like when deploying to four servers and they all try to pull code at once (three of them fail). We could have just misconfigured something, but it's hard to imagine there's a config option for "fall over on concurrent requests."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't support issue tracking yet. Not really something you'd want for the development process.
I see issue tracking on the demo site: https://try.gogs.io/moulaf/VLC-git/issues
Thanks!
> You could certainly purchase access to private Github repositories, but most certainly you’d rather want to invest your capital in more pressing matters. Getting a few private repositories on GH is $7/month. It'll cost me more than that for a server, not to mention the time setting up and managing.
Unlike GitLab, gogs can probably run well on a $5 DigitalOcean instance.
Haven't tried Gogs yet but sounds like it would be faster.
It contained some __MACOSX, ._* and .DS_Store files. They don't disturb anything but thats just careless packaging.
The executable bit on the executable was not set.
The config file suggests fo generating keys:
; Generate steps:
; $ cd path/to/gogs/custom/https
; $ ./gogs cert -ca=true -duration=8760h0m0s -host=myhost.example.com
Once it's up and running, I do like it so far for my personal repositories.
Still looking for a good locally deployable github alternative that has decent issue tracker (i.e. youtrack/jira/tfs level of customization and planinng support) AND pull request support. Are there any? Is this it?
Why not just install a separate product that is dedicated to being a really good issue tracker?
If you have a large, distributed team, say more than a couple dozen developers, then a tightly-interwoven defect and issue tracker that disrupts the workflow of the developers as little as possible enables some support organization models that are otherwise very unwieldy. Even with just plain text defect and issue fields, it was pretty remarkable how much sideband material via email was avoided.
Most of the satisfaction with this tooling depended upon (as usual) how management dictated it be used. Developers who had to use these features didn't universally love it though, even with developer-savvy/friendly management. Generally, modulo adverse management interference, if you did a lot of maintenance work on a code base, I can reasonably predict that you would tend to either like the integration, benignly tolerate it, or come to like it; it did save a lot of time, especially for those who automated parts of the related workflow.
This stemmed from being able to start with an issue that simply described the support ticket, evolve it to a defect that identified change sets that encompassed the suspected cause, check out, branch, check in code only related to the specific defect, including ancillary/utility/harness/test code specific to just the defect. It made it easier to "break off" a chunk of code for a specific defect, if someone put in the work to identify those pieces of code and properly used the integrated defect/issue features.
I personally like this kind of integration, and furthermore want regression testing support tied into it, but that's only because I'm really lazy and my memory leaks like a sieve, so getting back into the zone for a specific issue I worked on even only N weeks/months ago, locating all the relevant chunks of code needed, is terribly tedious for me.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Configuration_Management_Ve...
We moved to Gogs. GitLab was too slow, and started giving us random 500 errors (fatal bug). Overall, it's been more enjoyable than Gitlab. Things I don't like: * No pull requests / issues * No deploy keys * It's a full on GitHub replacement in the sense that anybody can sign up to your Gogs instance and use it. Who's using it that way? Would be much better if it were built for one organization with a way to group rep…
GitLab CEO here, I'm sorry to hear you experienced 500 errors. That shouldn't happen. Did you use our Omnibus packages? https://about.gitlab.com/downloads/ Anyway, if you want to look into it email me at sytse@gitlab.com