- Open Source
- Free private repos
- Free self-host (edit to add "Free")
- Everything in one spot (repos, ci, review, coding environment, etc...)
The Enterprise edition features[1] are closed source, and these aren't strictly "enterprise-y" features like SAML authentication. It includes plenty of "basic" workflow features found on GitHub:
- Rebase merge requests before merge
- Use fast-forward merges when possible
- Create templates for issues and merge requests
- Display merge request status for builds on Jenkins CI
GitHub (annoyingly) can't do fast-forward merges from non-squashed PRs either.
Display merge request status for builds on Jenkins CI
GitLab implements basically the same API as GitHub for updating build status of commits from external services, or do I misunderstand what feature you mean?
But in general I agree, there are some options GitLab reserved for EE that really feel like they should be part of the CE as well.
And FWIW, I admire GitLab for their open source work. I just think it's worth distinguishing that it's not entirely open source.
When googling for the fast-forward feature one of the top results was this GitHub thread, which had quite a bit of activity fairly recently: https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/issues/2324
It seems like many posting there are not aware that this repository/bug tracker is not an official channel anymore -> maybe posting an automated comment in all issues with recent activity or locking them could help avoid confusion? If you arrive via search, you don't see the notice in the main repository description.
It has many enterprise features including code ownership, issue templates, and a Gerrit like, sane code review workflow. You can fully integrate it with your CI tool and it even displays coverage results inline and such.
Ask me anything about it :) I'm not affiliated with it but am an experienced user.
I wonder how it compares to GitLab. Is it possible to set up protected branches, where I can say, only users X and Y are allowed to push to the master branch? Can I do a code review and then finalize it when I'm finished and does the author get notified with a summary like the new GitHub code review feature? Because currently in GitLab the author does get a notification email for every line comment I make, which is also not really the perfect way of doing it.
I already know that Phabricator squashes the changes into one commit, I think I can live with that. (because it promotes small code reviews) Does Phabricator have any problems with git rebase, where I'm refreshing a feature branch with the most recent master state? What I really like about the merge/pull request workflow of GitLab is, that multiple developers can work together on one feature branch while a merge request is open and can be used as a discussion platform for the changes - is this possible with Phabricator?
Also I'm wondering how solid the issue tracking is, and if the project workboards can compete with Trello. Can it be used by non-developers without giving them access to the code?
Looking forward to test Phabricator tomorrow.
Yes. I recommend (and my employer uses) a Herald rule that admits pushes to master only if the changes are in an approved Diff (unit of code review). This way you get an enforced 2-man rule, but anyone besides the author can approve the change.
This is currently impossible with Gitlab AFAIK, and is the main reason I won't use it.
You can also configure Herald rules to add blocking reviewers to other people's Diffs based on arbitrary criteria (i.e. touches X file and it's a Tuesday). A Diff cannot be considered approved until all blocking reviewers have signed off.
Reviewers can also be groups, so you could say, for example, changes that touch Y file must be reviewed by Security, but any member of Security can sign off.
>Can I do a code review and then finalize it when I'm finished and does the author get notified with a summary like the new GitHub code review feature?
Yes, everything you do on a Diff is batched and happens all at once when you click "Submit" at the bottom. Inline comments, the free-form text box, and the action all come as one email.
> What I really like about the merge/pull request workflow of GitLab is, that multiple developers can work together on one feature branch while a merge request is open and can be used as a discussion platform for the changes - is this possible with Phabricator?
A Diff is really meant to be an individual's small, well-defined contribution. Multiple people submitting code to a one diff can get messy. This would be better modeled as many diffs.
You are allowed to land diffs against branches other than Master, however this gets messy. It is not a first-class use case. My employer does not collaborate on feature branches; instead we land half-finished features into master (and production) disabled by feature flags.
It is NOT a merge/pull-request workflow. It treats Git more like Subversion; Phabricator is a very sophisticated alternative to emailing patches around before SVN committing them (basically the equivalent of landing).
>Also I'm wondering how solid the issue tracking is, and if the project workboards can compete with Trello.
Issue tracking is totally solid, very configurable. Project workboards consist of tasks/issues, which are much more expensive to create than Trello cards: you fill out a pagelong form, pick type, severity, owning team, title, description, etc. vs just free-forming a title. However, you can drag tasks around the workboard just like Trello and it looks pretty similar.
>Can it be used by non-developers without giving them access to the code?
Yes. Permissions (and approval flows, and notification rules) are very configurable. Phabricator is well suited to a large organization with rules, but this suitability doesn't carry too much overheard.
I don't think you could collaborate on issues with customers. Nontechnical people in your company, though, totally - we do that.
Due to popular demand, they are adding some tools to allow merge/PR workflow. That being said, it was not stable last time I checked (~6 mo. ago), and it will probably take a while, if ever, for it to be as good as what's already there for Differential (the current code-review/landing system).
That being said, their existing tools are really good, and the fact that you are not married to a single VCS is really nice. You can have some legacy SVN repositories and be fine, and use the exact same interface for code-review and landing as in your shiny new git repositories. Prefer hg to git? No problem. Have some complicated gitolite setup you don't want to bother migrating? Phabricator works fine even when not hosting the repository.
On top of that it was really painless to install locally. I had it setup in under an hour, and that included my first time ever setting up my webserver with php, and first time configuring a mysql instance.
Based on my experience, Phabricator has some quirks but is quite solid, and the well-designed command line arc workflow would please folks who refuse to open a Web browser.
I want to echo here what I said in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12501271 "If there are features that people think that should belong in the open source edition we're all ears. We've done so before https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10931347 A feature comparison between CE and EE can be found on about.gitlab.com/features/#compare "
Regarding the examples please help me understand:
1. Can you rebase in the GitHub interface?
2. Does GitHub have an option to fast forward merges?
3. Please let me know if this is a feature people want open sourced. EDIT turns out that this is part of the open source edition already https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/app/cont... I created https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/22185 to update the docs
4. We have a commit status API in GitLab CE https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/api/commits.html#commit-status and works with the open source https://github.com/jenkinsci/gitlab-plugin We do have additional integration in EE https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/integration/jenkins.html
BTW you might be happy to learn that what you mention as an example of typical "enterprise-y" feature is available in GitLab CE https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/integration/saml.html
> 2. Does GitHub have an option to fast forward merges?
So is Gitlab's aim to just play catchup to Github?
We have a broader scope than GitHub, see our announcement broadcasted on Tuesday for more information and a demo https://about.gitlab.com/2016/09/14/gitlab-live-event-recap/
Github compromises by having a nice ecosystem of tools which you can plug in, but having it built in is always nice since the integration is tighter.
If I'm reading this correctly, this exists in GitLab as an enterprise feature, so I think my earlier comment isn't too far off. There also appears to be some community feedback suggesting this should be a CE feature [2].
[1] https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-request-merges/ [2] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/4106
They have to make money after all.
The 'basic' product (which is far more than basic) is open source though, which incredible.
I'm not criticizing the product – they're welcome to open or not open source whatever they like. I'm just clarifying the description the parent used.
The review feature is very new in GL, and that plus all of the things you are mentioning within "everything in one spot" is available in this update (except maybe the coding env, not sure what that means anyway), if you've read the announcement. Github also has self hosting.
CE is a very large subset of EE. But yeah, maybe "open core" is a better term.
> except maybe the coding env, not sure what that means anyway
Koding integration (I haven't tried it yet) https://about.gitlab.com/2016/07/26/koding-and-gitlab-integr...
> if you've read the announcement
I assume you meant Github's announced features? Yeah, I think they're great.
> Github also has self hosting.
Costs $, Gitlab has free self hosting (updated parent comment)
[1] https://github.com/blog/978-introducing-github-enterprise
We have companies scaling their GitHub Enterprise instance up to 25,000 users, and we also have a dedicated Enterprise Support team available 24/5 to resolve any technical issues.
I am not your target market, FWIW, but just a curious developer.
We also recognize that having a SaaS solution like GitHub Organizations meets the needs of many companies (over 75,000 at last count), and our announcement of 2FA enhancements today is an indication of our desire to continue that approach.
That's a pretty misleading characterisation. You can browse the source code, submit issues, see what's being worked on, contribute PRs, and freely download and run your own instance of GitLab. A handful of enterprise features aren't open sourced.
GitHub in contrast is a black box.
We've had code review for many years now in GitLab. The coding env probably refers to our integration with Koding, an online IDE https://about.gitlab.com/2016/07/26/koding-and-gitlab-integr...
(It's of course not certain they are the reason they are moving again, but GitHub looked a lot like the market leader that feels like it doesn't have to bother much anymore. And they weren't entirely wrong.)
GitLab's roadmap yesterday surely didn't motivate or spawn the "New GitHub Universe," and I wouldn't think that Github is very nervous about GitLab currently due to it's massive lead in the market. Maybe this new round of funding made some of the folks at Github look over at Gitlab, but I doubt too much else.
Just my 2 cents, but I think they very well should be
Ehh... dominance among open source projects, and Hacker News and Reddit thread cool points, is one thing. But in boring old terms of actually making money, how IS GitHub doing?
"Enterprise" is practically a swear word here, but that's where the meaningful paying customers are. From my anecdotal experience, Atlassian absolutely dwarfs GitHub in the enterprise world... and that's just the enterprises that are willing to host code in the cloud to begin with.
For large shops demanding an on-prem solution, GitLab seems to have a much better story than GitHub since that's really their business model bread-and-butter. For GitLab, the cloud hosting is basically just a marketing tool.
https://www.quora.com/How-close-is-GitHub-to-returning-to-pr...
https://signalvnoise.com/posts/2486-bootstrapped-profitable-...
http://www.businessinsider.com/github-is-now-worth-2-billion...
It's historically been tough to compare them to Atlassian because Atlassian has provided tons of other enterprise services like Jira and Confluence, and an 8 year lead plus going public, but I think Github is definitely working on better squeezing into the enterprise space with this current announcement.
I was recently at an F1000 company and we did self-hosted GitHub Enterprise. While many services were duplicated across departments, there were a variety of other commercial VCS setups, and our GH was not highly available… there was a ton of buy-in to GitHub Enterprise. And, yeah, we did JIRA and Confluence (and SharePoint…).
I'm doing a gig for a F100 company now and, well, we've got GitLab. I dunno if I'm just more used to GitHub or if I actually prefer it to GitLab.
It's always disappointing to see a self-described intellectual community give over so heavily to such an obviously broken thought process, but humans being the emotionally manipulable creatures they are, it makes sense.
A lot of people seems to think they are smart because they belong to a powerful or politically correct group.
Also a lot of people seems to think they are smart because they are rooting for the underdog or just plain contrarian. ; )
and self-hosting :-)
Price is a feature.
But the answer of self-hosting is a perfectly valid answer for "Why the love for GitLab?" when one = $0 in licensing, and the other = > $2,500/year in licensing.
That is literally what the comment I replied to said. That "self hosting" was a reason to root for gitlab.
Similar to the "you can't use price to differentiate the two" - why not?
doesn't speak well for their business prospects.
GitLab's pricing model won a lot of people when GitHub's was ugly for anyone who wanted private repos (single guy at home with 10+ private repos for things like your dot files, etc? $20+ a month, for what likely amounted to under 1MB of disk space).
Still, most people in HN threads use it because it's free. Which is great for an open source tool, but bad for an unprofitable, VC-funded startup.
Maybe they should start looking into global rollout like Google, Facebook and basically every serious company having world-wide audience.
And that’s exactly why you shouldn’t use it.
> Since the open letter to Github with the complaints of feature requests,
This, and the answer from GitLab to that letter, is what made GitHub move in the first place.
You need competition for a healthy market.
Issue tracking, or anything tracking really, document versioning and templates to get you started really quickly. It’s proven scalable as it’s already used by companies with more than 17 000 users with a single instance of Tuleap. I would love some feedback as we are actively developing it with monthly releases. You can check it out at https://tuleap.org/