Hacker News Reader

Comment by Osiris | Hacker News Reader

The author mentions that if GitHub was open source, they would implement these features themselves.

Gitlab[1] is an open source repository manager that supports local installs as well as public hosting at gitlab.com. If author appreciates open source, perhaps they should put their efforts into improving an existing open source option rather than relying on a proprietary solution.

[1] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/tree/master

View on HN

This. When you are tired of github, start using gitlab, and realize your mistake going forward and stop making it, over[1], and over[2], and over[3].

[1] http://sourceforge.net/

[2] https://code.google.com/

[3] https://bitbucket.org/

Sourceforge runs Apache Allura, which is open source.

What's realistic timing for getting a feature you contribute (and receive approval) deployed and available for use?

The length of the merge request cycle depends on the complexity of the feature. Simple fixes get merged in days, average features take weeks and sometimes the review suggestions take multiple months to implement. After merge it will release in weeks so since we're on a monthly rel cycle.

At GitLab we would welcome contributions. More than 1000 people already contributed and everyone is welcome. Also see my other answer in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10905756

Absolutely agree!

I cannot fathom why people are still actively supporting GitHub.

Even if you ignore the ethical reasons, which if you are an open source developer really should suffice, GitLab is better and more customizable in every way.

Supporting it benefits yourself and all of the FOSS community.

gitlab.com is dog slow and my code is too important to risk self hosting.

GitLab.com indeed is dog slow, we're sorry and we're working on improving that Q1 2016 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/operations/issues

So happy to see you acknowledge the performance issues. You'd do everyone a great favor when you make it happen!

Wait, are you telling me that every git repository isn't a full copy of the codebase that you could recover from?

Really? I find that hard to believe, but it makes me glad I use Mercurial if that's the case.

Git repositories do have a full copy of the codebase (unless using some large-file management, same issue with largefiles extension for hg).

But gitlab/github are more than just git repositories -- issue tracking, discussions, wiki, etc. One version control which includes most of this as part of the repository is fossil, http://fossil-scm.org

So host on multiple sites?

Deploy on Heroku

Installing it on Heroku is not an option because their containers do not allow the disk access GitLab needs to store and manage the git repo's. source: https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-a-threat-is-GitLab-to-GitH...

Alrigh, sorry. I didn't know.

This was my first thought after reading it. I've used gitlab.com, also locally, and it is ok. Presumably people will want to stick with github due to popularity though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com