Is there a gradual shift in the FOSS community towards Gitlab (which in all honesty would make more sense), or am I just seeing the enthusiast in this thread?
It's too early to talk about a shift away from GH, but increased variety in the ecosystem can only be a good thing, compared to the dangers of a GH monoculture... especially considering git migrations are literally just one push to a new origin.
Yeah, I fear Bitbucket will always be shackled to the rest of the Atlassian product line, and never really allowed to innovate much.
Any chance BitBucket has a public roadmap? I'm a user because of your free private repos, I hope to grow into a paid user this year. Thanks for all that you do!
https://bitbucket.org/site/master/issues/11204/support-git-l...
(Also, can you take the fucking 'remember me on this machine' button away? It's a cruel, cruel tease. It has not worked a single time on 4 different installations I've had accounts on over the years)
A pain point here is that GH issues cannot be migrated easily as a git migration (but GH does have a REST api).
Capture awareness / interest early.
In medium to large sized companies, Atlassian will usually win out when you have a CTO that manages 100+ developers. Enterprises really like to stick with the "safe bet", where there are expensive licenses and dedicated account managers from the service provider.
Jira in particular is extremely popular with the modern addiction to Agile. Once you're on Jira, you just start to fall onto connecting all the related products like Confluence for wiki and Bitbucket Server (formerly Stash) for git. I'm not saying it's the best thing to just ignore all other offerings, but in my experience CTOs do exactly that and just go straight to Atlassian for everything.
Basically, if your company is using Exchange... expect to be forced onto Atlassian. Welcome to the enterprise.
BTW, this is not some small startup...
I like the GitLab feature set more than BitBucket but when I went started my own company it was generally cheaper for my team of 5-8 to use hosted JIRA, BitBucket, and Confluence then it would be for me to pay AWS/Rackspace/Azure/Digital Ocean to run the F/OSS equivalents in our cloud environment. BitBucket integrates just fine with Jenkins and the new Project organization was much needed.
We may someday move to GitLab or something else, but there isn't anything wrong with choosing Atlassian in any way. It's not like they're an Oracle/SAP type company that just abuses their customers and has awful products.
JIRA follows the feature branching workflow pretty well, so if you branch from dev/master with the ticket number as the start of the branch name you can click through to that branch straight from JIRA, which is generally pretty nice.
Confluence isn't nearly as tightly integrated with either. There are some reports, widgets, and stuff you can grab out of JIRA and make some dashboard type reports. Nothing special- we use Confluence to document architecture, deployment procedures, etc. We're definitely not Confluence power users.
What I realised is that eventually they're all ad-hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of a workflow engine and metadata service. Your choice is mainly of the interface and domain-specific layering violations.
Troll-friendly soundbite: Atlassian is the new Rational.
Let us know anything specific you'd have us improve - love to know what changed over the last 10 years to make you change your mind.
For the last 3 months, Groovy has been officially known as "Apache Groovy".
- Merge requests/code review in Gitlab is much better, whereas with Atlassian they recommend purchasing another product
- Integrated Wiki, whereas Atlassian they recommended Confluence
- The UI is absolutely terrible, even now the Bitbucket front-page where it dumps you when logged in is a disorganised mess and I can never find what I am looking for
- Speed, Gitlab running on my own server is MUCH faster, compared to Stash
- There was no way to easily add code snippets to be shared with the rest of the team, ala Snippets.
- Integration with the rest of the Atlassian toolset was so-so, and left a lot to be desired honestly.
- Statistics and information about the code and who is contributing and everything along those lines, makes for pretty graphs that make higher ups happy.
- Bitbucket doesn't currently have a view within the web interface for how many commits have been made to a project. People like numbers, and watching them grow!
- I have to reiterate, the UI is absolutely terrible in Bitbucket/Stash.
And the real killer is that I can get Gitlab CE and never pay you guys a dime, I've in the past helped out in the Github issues with debugging, and I can be part of the community. The only feature from EE that I need is the ability to use LDAP groups to define what users can and can't access various repositories, and the company I work for can afford to help pay for Gitlab's future to stick around!
I don't think that's true. Some people never get involved in free software even as a hobby. Some people get apprenticeships and learn to program from scratch on the job.
gitlab.com is the public 'demo' version which people compare to github. It's missing a few key items that would make it appealing to open source developers (and that I'd like to see them prioritize.) E.g.:
* Site search. It's been broken for months or possibly years. (Response time > 45 secs., Relevancy is miscalculated: "gitlab" itself does not appear in the search results.)
* Repo / project discovery and social features are extremely primitive.
I don't have any interesting answers for your hiring filters.
The culture you've built is very rare. I realized that if I felt that way, then I should try to help it become the norm.
We take all applications seriously but if you feel you got rejected for a bad reason feel free to contact me directly.
I guess you meant to paste: https://about.gitlab.com/jobs/
"A note on the technical interview: As part of our interviewing process, you may be asked to pick an issue from the GitLab CE issue tracker, and code ‘live’ with the interviewer there to talk with and collaborate with. We do this because we believe that it is the best way for you to see what the work is really like, and for our interviewer to see how you think, code, and collaborate." Actually, it's the opposite of how to find out how I think and code.
Do you have a profile on GitLab.com, GitHub or Bitbucket?
No.
What (open source) project that you built or contributed to are you particularly proud of / passionate about?
None.
Were you referred by a current GitLab team member?
No.
I once discovered that one of the most effective developers in the world would've had similar answers.
I know it's just an errant downvote, and people can feel however they want. But the information is no longer useful.
Assessing a candidate is as simple (and as hard) as that. Watching someone while they code isn't useful. https://data.triplebyte.com/take-home-interviews-d7f7ea13067...
Just give me something real to work on.
I created an issue at https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/13239.
* Increase the prominence of gitlab hosted projects on about.gitlab. Project search, trending, curated lists. - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/issues/558
* Trending project data by language (js, ruby etc) - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/13475
* Allow projects to flag themselves as looking for contributors - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/13502
Give them a +1 maybe they will put resources on making gitlab more oss friendly
1. Free software needs free tools (I did not consider GitHub or Bitbucket at all).
2. Excellent team management and access control.
3. Excellent integration of their CI in the interface, with ability to run own build servers ("runners", in their jargon). This is critical, because setting up the toolchain needed to build takes some time, and I can use the beefy hardware I already have, without having to setup jenkins.
4. Lovely UI.
The only real alternative in this space without setting up custom infrastructure is Savannah.
Or, if willing to compromise on principles, GitHub, which has a lot of incremental downgrades compared to GitLab.
GitLab is great, but it's kind of a copycat project. Nothing wrong with that, it's just there really isn't a compelling reason to join beyond "less-predatory pricing".
And the people who care about that use private repos, not OSS.
Private repo can be useful for early stage of OSS projects.
Agreed though that it still feels too much like a clone of GitHub. The UI for example is way to close to the original.
The main thing I find extra useful on gitlab is the ability to mark a MR as a WIP.
> The decision of what does and doesn't go in the sidebar is very non-intuitive
We try to put top level navigation into sidebar and everything else in the main page. For example navigation to `Projects` is in sidebar however tabs to switch between starred projects or personal projects is in main body.
> For example, in groups and user profiles you can find the list of projects in the main body of the page (and it's not visible immediately). Why is it not in the sidebar if you have a sidebar?
Good example. Agree its still non-intuitive in some places. For you particular example we created an issue to fix - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/13480.
> And then the ordering is also a bit weird -- I don't think many people would consider the order in GitLab to be "in order of importance" or even "regular use"
Ordering of projects is either by last activity or alphabetically. But in any case there is usually a dropdown in UI to sort by other criteria.
> And why can't I see the set of files in the repo when I first open it?
You can set what to see first at https://gitlab.com/profile/preferences page. We believe README is something people would like to see first we allow users to set different default page based on their preferences.
P.S. Thank you very much for your feedback. It will help us make GitLab UI more intuitive.
In GitLab today, we end up deleting and re-creating merge requests, or waiting until <requester> comments "@<reviewer> ready for merge".
Now this would be awesome:
> We’re thinking about more improvements to the Merge Request Approvals, the main improvement being automatic suggestions for reviewers, based on the history of the changed files in the merge request. For instance, if Jane worked a lot on a certain class and you submit a change to that class, Jane gets suggested to approve your merge request.
Today we are using the self-hosted community edition though.
If we start recommending automatic reviewers based on the blame this would likely be an EE feature.
I've always thought GitHub's pricing is awesome and very accessible. Can you explain?
Even though it's not tons of code, GitHub's pricing breaks down horribly in this case. I think that that in the long run many startups will move to embrace GitLab in the early days for price if nothing else.
So, if my company finishes 30 projects per year, we'd be paying $360/year to GitHub for what is essentially "storing a backup". And if we do this every year, that's $1000/year within 3 years. Not to mention that for "Organizations" the prices are doubled. For some reason. So... $2000/year?
Right now the same job is done by a $5/mo linode, with the prospects of upgrading to $10/mo.
The one I have is mostly about analytics, sales, and support tools, and unfortunately repository hosting wasn't a question asked. I also wish they would make this data source public so others could see shifts early -- for example the wave from HipChat to Slack would have been very visible.
Perhaps StackShare might be the closest open source of similar data.
Personally, I hope we can eventually move to a federated system, perhaps one based on ipfs.
Yes. They didn't just slap an open source licence onto their software, they actually follow an open source development mode, and work out in the open.
In that respect, if you're looking for a social network to keep in contact with a general group of people, Facebook is the way to go, and not the myriad of smaller sized social networks. If you're only looking for communication with a small group of people who haven't committed to anything, then you could jump ship to Google+ or whatever. Size of community is the salient feature, not the app.