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

Meat – A free self-hosted Git collaboration platform

getmeat.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–77 of 77 posts

Re: Meat – A free self-hosted Git collaboration platform

#71

Post by sytse »

Kivlov84 wrote: post #67
sytse wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi there Meat folks! Congratulations on the release, it looks really nice. Can you elaborate on the reasons for making something new? Feature wise GitLab CI already has deploy jobs, the only thing I see that is still missing from GitLab are chained builds http://feedback.gitlab.com/forums/176466-general/suggestions...

sytse, our deployment system is completely different from yours - I think the best idea is that you leave your email at our site http://getmeat.io and we'll send you an invite next week so you can check it out for yourself. I think that comparing Meat! to GitLab is more like comparing Star Wars to Star Trek (choose whichever you like best) than, say, choosing between the the Lannisters and House Targaryen :) Cheers!

Cool, I've signed up for the SaaS with web2008 at sytse dot com

Re: Meat – A free self-hosted Git collaboration platform

#73

Post by nutate »

jfdk wrote: post #20
mosselman wrote: post #10

Are there open-source alternatives apart from Gitlab that anyone can recommend? I must say that Meat looks very good.

http://phabricator.org is actually really great. It started in-house at Facebook. We've been using for the better part of year and I absolutely love it's code and design review tools. It also has a really nice CLI for managing your different reviews. Oh, and you don't have to worry about actually hosting the repos yourself (not worth the headache to me), you can just connect it to your github repo. Don't be scared by…

Definitely want to check this out. Did they redo their site post F8? I had talked w/ some FB devs at the react conference and one said that the code review process at FB was the #1 thing that made him a better programmer day in day out.

Re: Meat – A free self-hosted Git collaboration platform

#74

Post by stonogo »

mosselman wrote: post #66
Kivlov84 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi guys, Alexander from Meat! over here. Thanks for expressing your concern, it's totally understandable and we appreciate that. Now, to clear things up: we're a team of 10 and we spent an entire year on developing Meat!, day in, day out. To be honest, the license was our least concern, we just wanted to give you software that wouldn't be just another GitLab clone (hi there GitLab folks!) and we didn't devote the lic…

Open source would be really great and a must for me to consider running it. However, I don't understand the apparent outrage and flaming going on by others here. If you guys would've only had a payed plan without the option to self-run there would've been no problem. You offer self-hosting for free, something that you'd pay for with other services, and you are suddenly seen as the bad guys. Very strange. Congrats on…

You've misunderstood the real issue. Not being open source is mildly annoying, but not really a problem.

The actual problem here is that, having decided to use a non-free license for their code, they created a shitty one, which will not hold up, and is unsuitable for use when entering into a commercial relationship.

They still have plenty of time to repair this before going live, or public, or exiting stealth, or showing anything to anyone, or whatever they feel like calling it. But such an obvious misstep is very, very concerning to see in a company that proposes to maintain the software that manages such an important resource.

Re: Meat – A free self-hosted Git collaboration platform

#76

Post by dspillett »

tortoise_face wrote: post #50
dspillett wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I get around to working on and publishing some personal projects I have in mind (well: if I ever get around to such things...) I'll be deliberately picking iffy names for two reasons: 1. I find it amusing to irritate people who are so easily irritated by that sort of thing (I know, I should poke bears, but...) 2. People not using the project because of the name acts as a self selection device for the userbase. T…

Why not care about a name? To someone who cares about animal rights the name "Meat!" and cute little pictures of steaks trivializes and normalizes something they might find abhorrent. You wouldn't name your app "Abortion!" and if you find yourself saying "well, that's far more offensive than 'Meat!'" then that's just you assuming your values apply to everyone. Also, there's a bit of a gap between being uncomfortable…

> Also, there's a bit of a gap between being uncomfortable with something and being "impossible to keep happy".

In may experience (everybody else's may of course vary!) people who are easy to offend are also difficult to please. I deal with difficult people in my day job, I like a break from them in my personal projects!

> but it seems to me that if you're selling something

Now that is a significant point - once you are actively selling on an open market then commercial concerns (if nothing else) dictate you be careful about naming.

Of course there is nothing to stop you haveing two names: the free-for-personal use "Agent Ransack" also goes by "File Locator Pro" for commercial licenses, presumably because the latter sounds more professional.

Re: Meat – A free self-hosted Git collaboration platform

#77

Post by mosselman »

stonogo wrote: post #74
mosselman wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open source would be really great and a must for me to consider running it. However, I don't understand the apparent outrage and flaming going on by others here. If you guys would've only had a payed plan without the option to self-run there would've been no problem. You offer self-hosting for free, something that you'd pay for with other services, and you are suddenly seen as the bad guys. Very strange. Congrats on…

You've misunderstood the real issue. Not being open source is mildly annoying, but not really a problem. The actual problem here is that, having decided to use a non-free license for their code, they created a shitty one, which will not hold up, and is unsuitable for use when entering into a commercial relationship. They still have plenty of time to repair this before going live, or public, or exiting stealth, or sho…

It is not so much the issue at hand, it is more the way in which it is raised that I was aiming at. People are pretty aggressive in the formulating of their issues with what the guys behind Meat have done. There is no need for this.
Post reply on HN