Re: Gitlab Evaluation & Migration
- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 11:12:08 -1000
- From: Wyatt Childers <wyatt710@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Gitlab Evaluation & Migration
I'm not an active contributor. I am a developer though, who's employer uses gitlab... Not a huge fan. My main complaint is it tends to be slow, and I find the UI a little less intuitive. Recently they even broke copy and paste site wide on their instance -- which was very frustrating.
I recently stumbled upon this project: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea
I would pose it as an alternative that's very familiar feeling to GitHub, and written in a much more efficient language (Go vs Ruby), which should result in a lower operating cost.
I want to be clear, I am very appreciative that many projects have been working to evaluate GitLab, and I don't think it's the worst option. I just wanted to pose this as well to the community as well. More informatively than anything else.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 9:14 AM Ben Cooksley <bcooksley@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 8:06 AM Boudewijn Rempt <boud@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On zaterdag 23 februari 2019 18:58:46 CET stefan@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > "A lot" is probably a bit exaggerated, e.g. I don't really know where to
> > upload patches to Phabricator or create a pull request there, but do
> > understand how GitLab works.
> I was talking about the Krita community, which uses Phabricator extensively in this way. I don't think you're familiar enough with the Krita community to make this comment. Also, not knowing some thing (how to find the Code Review link in the https://phabricator.kde.org/ homepage) while being familiar with another workflow doesn't mean that the first thing is hard, and the second one not.
> > So I guess we have many different people in the community and many of
> > them can get used to change.
> Everyone can get used to change; as long as the thing remains possible.
> > > * clone the repo
> > > * hack
> > * git commit
> > * git push awesome-feature-branch
> So, basically, what you're saying is that unless a person has push rights, they cannot collaborate? That's worse than I thought.
In the Gitlab world, people would fork the main repository, work on
their changes there and then send a merge request.
To make it absolutely clear, push rights to main repositories are not
required under any circumstances to contribute to a repository in the
For KDE Developers of course, they'll have the option of either
forking the repository (like anyone else would for making changes) or
working on a separate branch within the main repository. How projects
want to work is up to them indvidually, but both models work - only
non-developers are required to use forks.
> > * click on the link in the output
> > > * add a bit of text explaining the change
> > > * wait for me or dmitry to look at their patches
> > One more step for the first creation of a merge request. Not that much
> > different.
> > > They don't have push access to kde's git server at all, so I guess
> > > 'git push my-fork HEAD' won't work in any case.
> > I guess this needs to change (with more fine grained permissions), the
> > whole Merge Request System is based on merging other branches to Master.
> > Afaik uploading just a patch doesn't work in GitLab.
> Well, that's too bad. Unless someone can explain to me how people can submit patches for review without having push rights, a migration seems impossible. It's already hard for some people to understand they need to create a KDE identity, but once they've got that, they should be able to offer patches for review.
> https://www.valdyas.org | https://www.krita.org