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

Gitlab S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–295 of 295 posts

Re: Gitlab S-1

#291

Post by wdb »

aritraghosh007 wrote: post #288
wdb wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I think Gitlab needs to match with features of Github and its reliability.

Curious what are some of the top features GH has which GL doesn’t?

Based on free Github:

Github Check Runs API Github Applications Security scanning, vulnerability alerting Packages Registry that's reliable

The kind of integrations that Github offers for pull requests in general is miles away from Gitlab. Some of the things I mentioned above are possible in Gitlab but only on the highest tier and still then the UI integration isn't a great.

Re: Gitlab S-1

#292

Post by Zenbit_UX »

lastofthemojito wrote: post #62
LewisVerstappen wrote: post #17

> We have been a 100% remote workforce since inception and, as of July 31, 2021, had approximately 1,350 team members in over 65 countries. Operating remotely allows us access to a global talent pool that enables us to hire talented team members, regardless of location, providing a strong competitive advantage. Will be interesting to see how many publicly traded companies are fully remote in 5, 10, 15 years. Especial…

And famously they're leaders on the location-based pay side of the remote pay argument (as opposed to the "we pay everyone based on the value they bring" side): https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation...

Another way of saying they'll never retain the best talent. At best they'll have "good" to mediocre. The best will move on.

If you're the best at your language/library/framework you'll always find better compensation than a company that normalizes compensation by locale.

There's plenty of top tier talent in cities across North America and Europe who can find remote employment at companies paying bay area rates.

Re: Gitlab S-1

#293

Post by rhacker »

Kelteseth wrote: post #244
rhacker wrote: post #104

Our entire company was on Gitlab.com for 4 years without paying a single dime to them. Unfortunately we moved off (decisions above my head) but I loved how simple everything worked. Their CI is top-notch.

I replaced all of our old not very well integrated tools to GitLab: Mercurial -> Git(Lab) Mantis -> GitLab Issues Dokuwiki -> GitLab Wiki Jenkins -> GitLab CI Before, everything was disconnected from each other , Jenkins was not working most of the time, and we didn't even have merge request reviews. Now I can cross-reference everything, have a beautiful working CI and only merge things that are fine. This even made…

Text based pipeline YAML files are so powerful.

Re: Gitlab S-1

#294

Post by RC_ITR »

b9a2cab5 wrote: post #155
RC_ITR wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but burning $183 to add $71 in revenue is a tough pill to swallow. Sure, it probably will pay back eventually, but as an investor, you really have to be bullish on retention/expansion. to get a reasonable LTV out of that. Most bulls have been right in the past, but eventually the music stops (look at the tenuous position Slack was in before acquisition).

You just need to be confident the LTV estimate is correct. That being said I'm pretty bearish on dev tooling in general as it seems like companies don't want to pay for it (but they will pay for expensive AWS services!)

>You just need to be confident the LTV estimate is correct.

I've yet to see an LTV calculation at a VC or from FP&A that is even close to reality (Who cares about WACC, even though the capital we raise is actually very very expensive? Why should we consider Gross Margin? What do you mean we can't just take our best cohort?).

But to mirror the fatalistic tone from my other comment, we're in an easy growth environment, so it kind of doesn't matter (until it does).

Re: Gitlab S-1

#295

Post by Koffiepoeder »

rossmohax wrote: post #285
Koffiepoeder wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did quite recently [0]. The bronze plan (4/user/mo) was burned and moved into premium (19/user/mo). If you have any sort of moderately active company, going back to free tier is really not an option (the feature reduction would be simply too much, plus a lot of previous ci/cd work would be binned). [0] https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2021/01/26/new-gitlab-product-...

only CI related feature previously available on bronze, but not on free anymore is branch protection. Rest of bronze CI should work just fine.

The most important one for us is the `environments` feature, but indeed a lot of four-eyes-principle controls are also missing in free tier (MR approval requirements, committer verification, push rules...).
Post reply on HN