GitLab 6.0 Released
blog.gitlab.org
blog.gitlab.org
I've a forked version of their startup script that doesn't use sudo for the init script (honestly wtf why is this so common redis does the same). sudo the init script don't sudo in init scripts. Meh, its not too bad I'm at the point of 15 minutes to upgrade between releases so its not too bad but yeah it isn't a trivial install.
https://gist.github.com/mitchty/6b9bc8c7dd41cd925b82#file-gi...
Thats basically it, nothing overly special, just switched sudo for su mainly. I could test to see if i'm root and then su or then sudo but don't see a point.
Gitorious _had_ (haven't looked at it recently, I guess they spent a lot of time addressing this) the worst install I have ever seen (any package, ever, 15+ year in the industry) ... it seemed built for complexity just to generate them consulting / professional support hours. Gitlab in comparison was blissfully simple.
As for the bloat... we have nearly 180 projects and 10+ user accounts, and while the baseline setup has a lot of bloat (I blame choice of language / framework) -- it generally works fairl well -- sometimes you have to kick Ruby.
Since I have seen this 'upgrade' problem repeatedly mentioned here, I think it would be a good problem to attack to help people feel more comfortable about using your product.
I recently set up gitolite internally and this thread interests me because GitLab looks like something that could be considered for Git hosting. However, someone in my place may not be so comfortable with the idea when I get the general feeling that "upgrades are a pain".
I only mean this as feedback to help you make your product more palatable (because I want to see a lot of good Git hosting solutions!)
It was great once it finally was up and running but I'd only recommend it if you have a legitimate intellectual property concern and can't use github enterprise.
I have their VM iso running in a VBox Headless process and it idles at 44Mb. Mind you, it only get's minimal use.
I love the software, but the installation / upgrade docs are always hell compared to your average `git pull && bin/rake db:migrate && foreman export`.
Having said all that, I'm running it on an old box with 512MB of ran and it's tolerable.
Now I use cgit, and discovered it a while before the Linux kernel did. [0] It is crazy fast (CGI written in C! Can you believe the nads on those guys?) and will be portable anywhere C is.
If only I could get git's smart HTTP working, but I could not find much on the internet to clue me in. Still pretty cool.
My only request would be to focus more on stability. We run it for 1 year now and there were many problems with upgrades and various changing issues with the different versions.
So for us less new features but a better tested Gitlab would be great. Maybe some kind of "stable" release? Not sure...
I think Gitlab kind of suffers from the Ubuntu syndrome when they were still pushing the non-LTS release as default. Many things were not tested long enough and would cause issues for many people while they were using it.
For example after one upgrade browsing the repos didn't work because apparently the Git version hat to be a specific version. I think this was neither tested nor is the Git version mentioned anywhere as a requisite.
Or with v5.3 the Git satellites would get into an unclean state sometimes and had to be cleaned out manually.
I took quite some time to find this out too.
So my suggestion: more polish and testing and less new features.
It is a great product and 'my' users love it (finally convinced them to move on from svn). One can copy-paste the instructions, it's rather lengthy but never had problems.
It's wonderful what GitLab gives, thanks a lot!!
So good for GitLab for existing at all, and congratulations to the team for releasing v. 6.0! May there be many more!
"GitLab 6.0 will be the first release that will also be available in an Enterprise Edition, for more information please see the GitLab.com Blog [1]"
[1] - http://www.gitlab.com/2013/08/22/introducing-gitlab-6-0-ente...
I remember working on LDAP integration for a SaaS product four or five years ago... I'd say that is exactly the sort of feature I'd expect to delineate a consumer/enterprise edition on.
Plus, base LDAP support is still in the community edition. Sounds reasonable to me.
* GitHub Enterprise: $5000 per 20 users per year, effectively $416.67
per 20 users per month. (You have to pay yearly though)
* GitLab Enterprise: $39.80 per 20 users per month, or $398 per
20 users per year
* GitLab Community: Free
Interestingly, GitLab is taking a page from GitHub's book and requiring customers to purchase user packs in groups of 20.
I'd feel much better if GitHub had a useful open source core (like GitLab, or Chromium, or AOSP, or darwin, or...) and then had an Enterprise Edition that had enterprisey features (GitLab's LDAP integration is a great example) and professional support and such.
Notably, grit [1] (git bindings for ruby), gollum [2] (wiki on git), and hubot [3] (chat robot).
To ask a company to open source their core, revenue-generating product is a little bit much. The reason Chrome can be open source is because Google Search isn't.
[0] https://github.com/github [1] https://github.com/gollum/gollum [2] https://github.com/github/hubot
Not trying to downplay the problems you seem to have had, just don't want to see the classic "complaints when things go wrong, silence when things go right" pattern with a product that I think is really great.
What?
> Bring morals into a world of capitalism is silly
No, actually it's not silly. It's the only thing that keeps this world from falling apart.
Might want to talk to Amazon about that[0][1]. Also: nope[2].
Seriously - If you claim that you have to be an immoral asshole corporation driven by nothing but monetary success, you can find all sorts of reasons for it and the more money you have, the more you can invest in making it seem like you're "just following orders". But the main reason is that you're an sociopath and care more about money than you care about people. And yes, those people are destroying the fabric of our society proportional to the amount of money and power they wield.
[0] http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/01/29/amazon-earnings-stron...
[1] Most likely what you're thinking about is 'shareholder value', the "worlds dumbest idea" http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/06/26/the-orig...
[2] http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-com...
I don't think asking for GitHub source to be open is the same thing as asking for a free service. They can charge all they want for using their service while having an open-source version for those who want to host it themselves.
I would call that simple.
The gem dependencies are incredibly large, but I found the install process well documented.
I think the first sentence of every new release should at least explain what GitLab is. A new version of GitLab the tool for X,Y,Z. Some people will see a link to it in their tech news source of choice and think "oh that's interesting, let's check what it is"
Keep up the good work :D
So they release a GitLab Enterprise Version. And Killed off GitLab Cloud? Well not actually killing it but offering it for free.
Why?
What's the business case behind it? Or GitLab simply dont want to run a Commercial, High quality Code Hosting Services?
Without some sort of payment, I think any business will be hesitant to use GitLab Cloud.
If GitLab doesn’t even allow you to use `<table>` tags, that’s probably not a problem with their Markdown flavor, but a problem with the sanitization step that runs after the Markdown compilation. Unless GitLab is using a broken implementation of Markdown that doesn’t allow any inline tags.