141–150 of 164 posts
I would've liked it better, if it also had auto-deploy to gce, and auto load-balancing, scaling, health-checks and service discovery.
The first one, sure, but all the others don't really seem like features of source hosting...?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on what you mean by 'trust'. Personally try to minimize possible negative impact such services can do with information I choose to share/store in case some/all services are compromised.
How do you mitigate AWS and the App Store?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems true, but only for open source projects. Why would it be hard for closed source projects (where github makes all their money) to move away?
It's actually simple. GitHub tests on their free users and see their reaction. If the feedback is positive, move it to paid clients. If not, keep frustrating your free clients so they move to paid accounts.
500 MB lifetime storage doesn't seem like a whole lot.
To be clear, this is the current limit in beta and it's per repo, so if you have multiple cloud projects, you get multiple repos. We're thinking about adding support for multiple repos per project in the future. Would that be useful? Also, and we're planning on upping the limit once we reach GA. What do you think a reasonable limit should be for a git repo? Our goal is to strike the right balance between usefulness a…
It looks more like a beginning of an online IDE than a direct github competitor. It's just convenient if you're already using Google's cloud services.
I'm curious what kinds of additional features you'd be interested in here. In these comments so far I've heard code review, access control and online IDE. Would any of those be useful? What else would be useful? Chris Sells PM, Google Cloud Platform
I hope that someone really does make an online IDE that means I don't have to use a local IDE anymore, but I'm not certain how feasible that is. Atom seems like a giant step in the right direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. GitLab's permission system seems better for specific permissions so hopefully that will translate well when/if 3rd parties start writing plugins for it.
Right now we at GitLab offer Project Services http://doc.gitlab.com/ce/integration/README.html This enabled people to add new functions that are tested as part of the codebase so that plugins don't break on upgrades. Are there any plugins you would like to see? BTW We're considering renaming 'Project Services' to 'Add-ons'. Do you think that makes things clearer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious what kinds of additional features you'd be interested in here. In these comments so far I've heard code review, access control and online IDE. Would any of those be useful? What else would be useful? Chris Sells PM, Google Cloud Platform
GitHub has at least some good ideas in this area. Code review and issue tracking are nice, but everyone seems to want something different from those systems so I'm not sure how to do that in a reasonable way. Access control would be nice for deploys I guess? I hope that someone really does make an online IDE that means I don't have to use a local IDE anymore, but I'm not certain how feasible that is. Atom seems like…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly this, it always sucks and it changes too often in completely random ways. Github's issue tracker is also very half baked, every real project has to has a Trac instance or so somewhere else. But _it has critical mass_, and pull requests and the way commenting them and testing them etc works is really awesome, and it'll be hard for a new competitor to get people to move.
That seems true, but only for open source projects. Why would it be hard for closed source projects (where github makes all their money) to move away?
I have been thinking, though, that I don't like the workflow associated with commenting out of band. I would really prefer that people comment by making a branch and modifying my PR (either with code comments or just fixing the problems directly). If I knew how to do that efficiently, I probably would have almost no attachment left to GH.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GitHub will not shutdown in X years. That's their main business. While Google has the tendency to shutdown products after their beta phase. From Google POV that's a side project to their ad biz.
Main businesses do fail (witness poor, beleaguered SourceForge). Meanwhile, Google's cloud ecosystem is a revenue-generator for the company; that does decrease the odds that it'll have the plug pulled. I wonder how many people shy away from AWS on the thought that web services aren't Amazon's core business model.