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

Moving to GitLab: Yes, it's worth it

about.gitlab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 356 posts

Re: Moving to GitLab: Yes, it's worth it

#321

Post by dijit »

gravypod wrote: post #266

The idea of switching from one company that holds your data to another doesn't make sense to me. What does make sense and is worth working for is being able to host my own code on my network. That's where GitLab really comes in for my work. I have no reason to switch from one platform to another if I can't host it in my own network. GitLab was a great idea but from my experience it's been built on an extremely frustr…

I'm surprised you're not running the docker instance, it's literally "run this and it will work" in fact, most of their instructions are rather on the nose.

Re: Moving to GitLab: Yes, it's worth it

#322

Post by Snappy »

bisby wrote: post #252
jobvandervoort wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're working hard on making CI super easy to use and setup. If you want to give it a spin, check out our recent blog post on starting from 0: https://about.gitlab.com/2016/07/29/the-basics-of-gitlab-ci/

Im using Jenkins right now to basically handle docker deployments. Without taking the time to actually read up on it in depth, does GitLab CI handle ways for me to essentially just pull prebuilt images and run them on a targeted server with desired settings? I'm already preparing to move to GitLab CI for images that I build myself (since Im already storing the Dockerfiles on gitlab)

Yes, using prebuilt images is easy. Basically, just add `image: ruby:2.3.1-alpine` to a job, for example.

Docs: http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/ci/docker/using_docker_images.html...

Re: Moving to GitLab: Yes, it's worth it

#323

Post by vonklaus »

duaneb wrote: post #215
matthewmacleod wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually assumed that this message was automated – "We found on objectionable word in your project, please don't use it." It just seems that this problems is remarkably easily solved with a simple "We are using a technical term correctly, maybe you should consider adjusting your automated emails." I do get the impression that people generally seem to be all to eager to take offence, and it strikes me as a bit ironi…

> I actually assumed that this message was automated – "We found on objectionable word in your project, please don't use it." How is this any better?

I find it worse. Github provides a great service and certainly has provided an incalculable value to os, but at a project level, it doesnt provide nearly enough value to dictate word choice, etiquette or style. Yes, the service is free, but github needs high caliber os projects more than they need it. It dosnt even matter who has an edge, automating spam at a user who says a naughty word is silly.

Idk, i dont understand why they would even care. Unless it reached a very intolerable bar, i dont think this is necessary

Re: Moving to GitLab: Yes, it's worth it

#324

Post by sdesol »

jobvandervoort wrote: post #66
sdesol wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since I have your attention, something else that I think should be on your radar is creating/defining supported injection points in GitLab's UI. If you haven't done so, you should look at what Microsoft has done with Visual Studio Team Services. By providing supported injection points in GitLab's UI, GitLab will be able to signal to others, that they are a solution you can safely build on top of.

That's a very interesting idea. Right now, to integrate deeply, you'd have to go through the heavy-handed process of creating a service [0]. That then does allow you to do almost anything, but the barrier to entry for that is high. I created an issue for your proposal and hope you can provide some more feedback on how this would work, ideally [1]. [0]: http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/project_services/project_services.... S…

This is great to hear and I personally think this the next battle front for gaining/retaining Git users in Enterprise. I'm currently working on integrating with Bitbucket and Microsoft, and I'll comment on the issue in a few weeks and provide some feedback.

Re: Moving to GitLab: Yes, it's worth it

#325

Post by matt4077 »

AWildDHHAppears wrote: post #273
matt4077 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, there is the moral case: Certain groups have been kept away from positions of power & wealth to such an extend that taking remedial action is warranted. Secondly: there are obviously some differences in the behavior, knowledge, and culture of different groups and it is beneficial for a company to include those and profit from it. But... you can't have gone through more than 14 years of life without havi…

So you're saying there would be more mentally challenged people committing changes to open source projects, if we didn't use the word "retard" in a scientific sense referring to digital filter algorithms?

So you're saying they shouldn't hire minorities because someone once wrote a stupid e-mail?

See – it feels kinda strange when people willfully misunderstand you and put words in your mouth you never said...

Re: Moving to GitLab: Yes, it's worth it

#326

Post by prodigal_erik »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #190
akerro wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you take a look at price for GitHub for same big team please?

Sorry, that was my point – Github is ~ $11k for a team of 100 developers. The difference between '$11k' and 'free' is basically irrelevant when you are paying > $25m for your engineering team in the first place!

Somebody has to establish it's one of the most reasonable choices, and convince the checkbook holder it'll save the team two week's work.

Re: Moving to GitLab: Yes, it's worth it

#327

Post by gravypod »

dijit wrote: post #321
gravypod wrote: post #266

The idea of switching from one company that holds your data to another doesn't make sense to me. What does make sense and is worth working for is being able to host my own code on my network. That's where GitLab really comes in for my work. I have no reason to switch from one platform to another if I can't host it in my own network. GitLab was a great idea but from my experience it's been built on an extremely frustr…

I'm surprised you're not running the docker instance, it's literally "run this and it will work" in fact, most of their instructions are rather on the nose.

Getting docker working for me has always been a pain. I've still not gotten as docker install working across updates or dist-upgrades.

Again, I'm as much of a sysadmin/debops is a neurologist in the way that I'm in no way a neurologist. If I cut open someones head, maybe messed around with some things, and closed it up they might be ok. That's how my servers 'run'.

Anything outside securing the system (ssh key auth, non-root user, etc) to a standard good enough for me is not doable.

Re: Moving to GitLab: Yes, it's worth it

#328

Post by senthil_rajasek »

DanBC wrote: post #320
senthil_rajasek wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good writer has the responsibility of choosing the correct word. That's what makes them good. I apologize if my use of some words offended you. My reasoning is that words that trigger specific memories and experiences in a person are more hurtful. The world is not a perfect place but it is constantly changing and evolving. I keep working hard to use words that are not hurtful.

You're going to fucking hate what the English call canola oil.

My points are in the American context and not meant for the old world.

Re: Moving to GitLab: Yes, it's worth it

#329

Post by technomancy »

Tobold wrote: post #204
technomancy wrote: post #45

I was pretty impressed with how easy it was to get free CI runs on pushes and merge requests with my OSS game: https://gitlab.com/technomancy/bussard/commit/73e84d11ed33ff...

Very interesting! I remember trying your game a few months back, but I didn't have the time to really get into it. I was thinking about making a game in Löve for a while now, but I have never done any automated testing with it. Is there a good tutorial for that? Or do you feel like writing one? ;)

I highly recommend using Löve; the simplicity is very compelling.

I wrote a bit about testing on my blog, but it's more about the architecture of how the user-input system meshes with the internal reprogrammability. There's a bit about fuzz testing though: https://technomancy.us/180

Maybe I'll follow it up with a more detailed post specifically about automated testing in Löve since it seems to be not well-understood.

Re: Moving to GitLab: Yes, it's worth it

#330

Post by technomancy »

connorshea wrote: post #214
technomancy wrote: post #45

I was pretty impressed with how easy it was to get free CI runs on pushes and merge requests with my OSS game: https://gitlab.com/technomancy/bussard/commit/73e84d11ed33ff...

We also have xonotic on GitLab, it's quite awesome :) Would love to hear your thoughts on developing a game using GitLab, anything we can improve in that regard? [1]: https://gitlab.com/xonotic/xonotic

Well, unfortunately I don't have many contributors yet, so I can't speak much to the collaboration features. The only thing I can think of is that it would be nice if it were easier to get CI failures announced in Freenode channels. I haven't looked into it in a while, but last I checked it was a bit tricky to hook up push events into IRC.

All the minor complaints I had a while back have been addressed (not showing the readme as the splash page, and not being able to reply to issue emails) so I've been quite happy with it.

I also appreciate how force-pushes to master are disabled by default. The fact that my browser's Emacs key bindings don't get stolen by the issue textarea to do stupid markdown stuff is very much appreciated. (glares fiercely at github)

Post reply on HN