- Issue tracker
- Merge requests that are easy to analyze
- Ability to put comments during a code review on specific lines of code and discuss it from there
- Embedded wiki for a project
- Managing different access rights to different repos
I couldn't see myself using pure git without any additional tooling for anything more that personal projects that I work on alone.
Markdown is already rendered in the repo and can live next to the code. Meaning that merge requests can update both the code and documentation at the same time. And GitLab / GitHub have embedded editors that allow you to edit the markdown files using from the browser, just like a wiki.
Basically the only thing that is left is that the wiki can be edited without supervision.
Then again I'm not sure how many non-technical folks are willing to dig into GH anyway. I've heard Issues & friends called "too confusing" for "non-technical" folks, in favor of Asana and Jira, of all things. Huge WTF from me since I'd say the opposite is strongly true regardless how "technical" one is, but that's the perception I guess.
I've always been an advocate for the "markdown in the repo" scheme with CI-generated Sphinx (or whatever) docs, but these features have really won me over to the standalone wiki at least in some cases.
Yes, that's a significant difference. Publically contributed information (Wikipedia, Stack Overflow) can be quite good.
---
Another difference is that the wiki is not versioned with your code. (An entirely separate repo, but stil logically connected with the code repo.)
HEAD of wiki is documentation for version 1, version 2, version 3, etc. of your code.
That may be a good thing; that may be a bad thing.
Because Atlassian manages to extract boatloads of enterprise money for a product portfolio that can be best described as an inconsistent, unintegrated mess.
Everything they have was bought together and crudely integrated, with each product having totally different ways of using and administrating them. Not to mention that core features (e.g. "merging" duplicate user accounts, SAML login) are paid-for plugins of varying quality. Feature suggestions for the products end up in multi-year-old tickets that one has no way to influence.
But still, enterprises are buying up that crap because the alternatives to JIRA and Confluence plainly suck even more. The only thing that has real competition is Bitbucket, with Gitlab and Github as more than viable alternatives.
One such 'feature request' is 'unsubscribe from email': https://community.atlassian.com/t5/Jira-questions/How-can-us...
Mental.
I have a rule to send it all to spam.
That's like asking if shitty burgers really "justify mcdonalds valuation".
Maybe you are not impressed with the product, but millions of people are interested in buying it.
For years Gitlab had a better offer then Github, and yet github was always more popular due to the network effect.
It’s pretty hard to claim a technical moat when most of what you sell can be replicated with a repo fork.
Without signing a contract or even having the board or upper management discuss it, the organization is now entrenched with this piece of software. Comes along a new regulation for your industry; GPDR, SOX, HIPAA, etc. It doesn't matter. What do you do? Fortunately, the provider of your "open source" (or rather: open core) solution offers features supporting your use case. You just have to upgrade from the MIT-licensed core, community edition to the enterprise edition, for $xx,xxx per year.
When arguing why it’s better than alternatives, the talking point is that “it’s open-source!” But when it’s (rightfully) pointed out that this doesn’t leave much of a defensive moat, the open-source philosophy gets thrown under the bus.
Yes, yes...it’s “open core”. That just means that it’s 10% more difficult to clone and replicate the business. Mark my words: someday, Gitlab will do something to piss off the “community”, and this will quickly happen.
It doesn't matter if you can clone it exactly tomorrow. Go ahead and do so. It won't give you the same valuation and it won't hurt theirs because that's not how it works.
Gitlab as a company is about a precarious as Docker as a company. Most of its users are using it for free, and the few that are paying would happily pay anyone else who provided support for the same software. It’s a commodity.
But yes, many people also pay Gitlab for enterprise features (which are not open-source), hosting, support, and more. If they would pay anyone else then why aren't they using Github? If they just wanted git itself then why aren't they using the numerous lightweight alternatives?
Business isn't as simple as replicating a product, it's about selling value, and Gitlab has a unique solution that covers the entire software lifecycle. I'm sure you know all this but yet you've made numerous posts disparaging this company. Why, exactly?
True, you could start a burger chain for a lot less than $10m...
source: https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss/<BVRVZEWYB30Q.3H...
You are greatly overestimating your abilities.
There are bug trackers that have more features compared to Github/Gitlab.
> Merge requests that are easy to analyze
You can get that through pure git by using git format-patch and git send-email
> Ability to put comments during a code review on specific lines of code and discuss it from there
You can get that by replying inline to the email containing the patch (much like I'm doing here when replying to a certain part of your comment).
> Embedded wiki for a project
That could be maintained in the docs directory of the project
> Managing different access rights to different repos
Given that the project maintainer(s) maintain access to their repos, they could just as well handle the access rights without having to rely on Github/Gitlab.