311–320 of 750 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GitLab was never going to be the ones to take the mantle GitHub left on the ground. They’re a “clone” company and have very few original ideas of their own.
They did it better. I’ve never met anyone who has used both GitLab CI and GitHub Actions and thought they were remotely equivalent.
> Our transparent restructure process creates uncertainty that is real and it's hard, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. I ask that you reflect on the why, what and how and engage your manager in a real conversation about the work, the questions and concerns you have, and what the next chapter looks like for you. Your manager may not have all the answers, because they too are going through this period of uncerta…
"talk to your manager" is code for "don't straight go rant on SNS over this" For some people it might actually be worth it, not to solve anything but to talk to someone. It still sucks anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you need to make a case for DEI being “one of the industry’s greatest strengths”. It’s not obvious to me.
McKinsey has studied this extensively had has repeatedly found that diversity is financially beneficial to companies. They've had at least 4 reports on the subject. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inc... Landing page: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inc... It's obvious why this is the case if you sit down and think about it. Echo chambers of like-minded individuals ca…
Their old CREDIT values: Collaboration, Results for Customers, Efficiency, Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging, Iteration, and Transparency. New values: Speed with Quality, Ownership Mindset, Customer Outcomes. In other words, work harder, not smarter, and no more DEI.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> hundreds/user/month What is this based on? The only thing I can think of is AI coding tools but only a few companies do it properly. I don't see gitlab capturing any of that spending Also the whole "removing layers". Today's prof g market video was about the topic. Afaik it was the Coinbase CEO telling the same. Do these people get together to discuss their talking points? Or are they signalling to investors?
Presumably based on the fact that the OpenAI/Anthropic $200/month plans are selling like hot-cakes, and it's not often that a new software category comes around which attracts those kinds of per-seat prices.
If gitlab thinks they are as famous as github i don't know what to say. They should have atleast positioned themselves as a better github alternative
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GitHub was already pretty much perfected years ago IMHO. I’m not convinced we need that many original ideas here
Better CI and better search are the two things that are still missing from GitHub
Their old CREDIT values: Collaboration, Results for Customers, Efficiency, Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging, Iteration, and Transparency. New values: Speed with Quality, Ownership Mindset, Customer Outcomes. In other words, work harder, not smarter, and no more DEI.
> Ownership Mindset Every company I've worked at hammers the "ownership" idea and I hate it so much. It's how they drive a culture where employees are expected to invest themselves into "owning" a problem space that can be taken from them at any moment. It's how they trick you into doing extra work that's not in your job description. Unless you're ACTUALLY an owner, don't be fooled by an "ownership" value.
I think same group of management consultants do a round of industry and in short time every company is using same duplicitous language of ownership, design thinking, customer first mindset, cloud first, cloud native, AI native, enterprise 2.0...and on and on it goes.
Rather striking statements that have me somewhat concerned: > Agents open merge requests in parallel, trigger pipelines around the clock, and push commits at a rate no human team ever did. Git itself wasn't designed for that load, and bolting AI onto platforms not built for agents is the biggest mistake of this era. We're doing a generational rebuild of the underlying infrastructure to handle agent-rate work as the d…
Won't this be bad for agents since now you need to provide this new API in their prompt, as opposed to just regular git which the model has seen enough in its training data
They seem to be mostly reducing headcount of managers and claim (supposedly) to be prioritising engineering.
On top of that their redesign sounds interesting - they want to adapt the platform itself (and concept) to deal specifically with how AI "users" will code and submit changes (and the rate of and interaction of that model) vs humans. We'll see how this plays out but this doesn't sound like a bad idea to me at all (assuming humans of course still get priority).