291–300 of 317 posts
I was wondering if GitLab provides a Markdown editor that could be used by non-technical users directly from the web interface? Something like Prose[1], Dillinger[2] or StackEdit[3]. Of course you could argue if it's in scope for a project like GitLab, but it means that I could use static site generators for projects where non-technical users need to edit the content without ever thinking about a CMS. Would be nice:…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A site operator. It isn't censorship for someone to decide who they want to talk to. CF is simply giving site owners levers to use if they so choose. While I am a strong supporter of Tor, privacy, and anonymity, CF has done nothing wrong here by allowing site operators to selectively choose who they wish to serve to.
Sounds a lot like censorship to me. It's discrimination at the very least.
I'd imagine if there was a major ISP network out there that was doing NATing or similar for their customers so everyone came from a small set of IP addresses they'd get the same treatment. More users on the same IP means more abuse from that IP. If anything Cloudflare isn't discriminating. To handle Tor users better you'd have to discriminate (technical definition, not the negative form) to handle Tor users better
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the trouble for me using Gitlab.com. Feels like there is a lot of 'n+1' going on in the background. I'm sure there aren't, but it feels like a Rails app that is suffering from that. Other than that it's great. I've moved nearly everything over from GitHub
There are certainly a lot of queries we have and will optimize, to see the work see https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/operations/issues/42 BTW to prevent simple N+1 queries we use the Bullet gem https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/7ff974e38e24a9b...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11431003 and marked it off-topic.
I'm sad to see that. The subject was arguably right on topic. I get the feeling that it was taken down only because it was inconvenient for someone.
Definitely not, it was two steps further from the topic.
1) It was talking about a competitor's company, which is fine
2) It was talking about a non-technical aspect of the competitor's company
However I would love to see this topic come up more, just not on gitlab's stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GitHub Flavored Markdown is itself a rip of the markdown standard. Is it giving enough credit to markdown for GitHub to include the word "markdown" in the name? If so, then by extension it should be sufficient for GitLab to include "flavored markdown" in the name. ;)
The many "standards" of Markdown also now include CommonMark [1]. There is also some interesting history as to why it is not named "Standard Markdown". [1] http://commonmark.org/ [2] https://blog.codinghorror.com/standard-markdown-is-now-commo...
That said, I did not notice the "GitLab Flavored Markdown" in the story link but I'll be fairly disappointed if it is actually "yet another Markdown pseudo-standard" and not CommonMark.
Dear lord these guys are putting in work. I'm not exactly a huge supporter of Github (the company not the product) so I'm very glad to see it. I look forward to their continued growth.
>Dear lord these guys are putting in work. man I wish they would bring something new, cool and innovative to the space, instead being bent on doing feature-by-feature copy of github. They have an amazing opportunity now to take advantage of github fatigue. But they are throwing it all away by trying to become an inferior clone of github.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks! Glad to know if I write something about myself it will have a minimum of two buyers (my mom is very supportive too). I like to write about business stuff most. Any merge requests on our handbook https://about.gitlab.com/handbook and strategy https://about.gitlab.com/strategy are appreciated.
styse, you are a great motivation for the product company I run. I checked your strategy page and you are planning to integrate with NetSuite. Why not something open source for finance? ERPNext? disclaimer: I am the founder of erpnext
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There seems to be a healthy competition between various ci software that works with github. Why would github try to kill that and take on such a high touch area. Its quite puzzling why gitlab went that route, they are basically discouraging ci systems from integrating with them. I think this is would turn out to be a bad decision for gitlab.
Well, their CI is pretty good for starters... compared to self hosting jenkins, or paying for Travis CI. Self hosting gitlab integrated CI runners is a big plus for me. As a third party service provider you could still host and/or modify those CI runners for specific tasks like node, go, etc.
And to give some additional background to dominotw's question. We didn't like the options for CI on-premises. And by integrating it directly into GitLab it is very easy set up a new project, encouraging people to use CI on more projects.
Having people use GitLab CI will mean GitLab is a less attractive platform for other CI products. We do have a good commit status API since GitLab 8.1 and there is a great Jenkins plugin that supports that http://doc.gitlab.com/ee/integration/jenkins.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I get the feeling that it was taken down only because it was inconvenient for someone It's a tempting feeling to get, and a contagious one, but no—the only inconvenience we care about is that of HN readers who don't want to read tedious flamewars tacked like burning barnacles onto the top comment. I'm kind of glad you said that, though, because usually the sinister implication goes the other way, Gitlab being a YC-…
How many up votes does that comment have? I want to know how many HNers are so offended by diversity initiatives that they will lobby companies to boycott github.
Dear lord these guys are putting in work. I'm not exactly a huge supporter of Github (the company not the product) so I'm very glad to see it. I look forward to their continued growth.
Yeah, but I wish they'd give more credit where due. On their markdown page they claim "For GitLab we developed something we call "GitLab Flavored Markdown" (GFM)." while that is obviously a ripoff of GitHub Flavoured Markdown.
I wish they'd move over to CommonMark, which actually attempts to standardize Markdown once and for all.