5 ms·

> Over the years, several developers have asked why we're not on GitHub. The perception is that "everybody" is on GitHub, and some developers don't take your pr

by JD557 10y ago

> Over the years, several developers have asked why we're not on GitHub. The perception is that "everybody" is on GitHub, and some developers don't take your project seriously if it's not on GitHub. This is the sad truth. It doesn't matter anymore if Bitbucket/Gitlab/etc. are better than GitHub: The social pressure for open source projects to move to GitHub is so high that the alternatives don't even stand a chance. Maybe a meta-search engine for open source projects could help the competition, but if all projects are on GitHub, who would use such a search engine? P.S.: I actually like GitHub, I'm just sad that all cool changes that GitLab has made recently will end up being mostly ignored by the OSS community. Even if they fixed their speed problem (which I think is their biggest downside compared to GitHub), no project would move there because "everybody is on GitHub".

davisonio 10y ago
> no project would move there because "everybody is on GitHub". If they had a solid sync service between GitLab and GitHub; PRs, issues, code, everything then things could get interesting and some people might consider the switch.
- jobvandervoort 10y ago
  Right now you can import your entire project easily in GitLab, from GitHub (incl everything) [0]. You can also sync any remote repository (two-ways) [1] in GitLab EE (which runs on GitLab.com). I made an issue for a continuous sync in GitLab [2]. Would love to get your feedback. [0]: http://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/importing/import_projects_from_github.html#sts=Import http://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/importing/import_projects... your project from GitHub to GitLab [1]: http://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/repository_mirroring.html http://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/repository_mirroring.html [2]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/904 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/904
abstractbeliefs 10y ago
The worst thing is that eventually, github will start to want to monetise even more, and we'll see it turn into SourceForge, at which point many projects that have tied themselves into github rather than spreading out more carefully amongst other git hosts will face a bit of an existential crisis. We'll never learn.
- nerdwaller 10y ago
  This is part of why I have some issue with the Golang packaging story, it pretty much requires you to refer to dependent packages as `host.com/user/pkg`, so in most cases it's `github.com/...`. You can manually rewrite this, but that's not really ideal.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - piotrkubisa 10y ago
    In case whether 'search & replace' method is not an option you may create your own 'proxy' server like gopkg.in [1], since Golang packages don't have to be only on GitHub [2] you may set up mirroring rules to overcome problems with package location, version/revision, or library when GitHub downtime may occur. Personally, I don't think if creating own proxy server as solution would be quite big deal whether there are many various dependency tools for Go. 'Search & replace' is not mission impossible either. Go is not PHP - it just won't compile if (local) dependency is broken. [1]: https://github.com/niemeyer/gopkg https://github.com/niemeyer/gopkg [2]: https://golang.org/cmd/go/#hdr-Remote_import_paths https://golang.org/cmd/go/#hdr-Remote_import_paths
trumbitta2 10y ago
If Gitlab is listening (like they often do), I think we just figured out a solid plan: 1. Fix the speed problem 2. Build yourself such a meta search engine for OSS projects
- cm3 10y ago
  And advertise the built-in CI feature in a major way.
  - sytse 10y ago
    We changed our homepage to reflect all the things you can do with GitLab? https://about.gitlab.com/ https://about.gitlab.com/ What other things do you think we should do?
    - cm3 10y ago
      The features are all listed, but just by glancing over the site it's not clear what extra features are provided on gitlab.com for open source projects that would require webhooks to external services on github and the associated security risks. So, in addition to listing features of Gitlab Community and EE it would be helpful to see that for example there is built-in CI support that targets X platforms.
- jobvandervoort 10y ago
  We're always listening. 1. We're working on the speed. It has gotten a lot better with the last few releases. The release of tomorrow is another big step, especially for diffs. We have a number of issues for this, I'm linking one of the meta issue here, but be sure to check the release of tomorrow for graphs and whatnot [0] 2. It's definitely an interesting idea. I made an issue [1]. Love it if you would provide some feedback. I wonder whether we'd be allowed to do such a thing, but it seems to be in the interest of the end-user, which is a good thing. [0]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/infrastructure/issues/59 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/infrastructure/issues/59 [1]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/903 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/903
snarfy 10y ago
Instead of meta-search, git needs meta repositories. I should be able to specify an alias which represents multiple repositories, not just URLs like it does now. This way I could upload to e.g. @myrepo and have it upload across github, gitlab, and other git based hosts. Sure it could be done pretty easily with shell scripts, but it would help the cause if it were built in to git. I'm a git novice so it may already have this feature, but if not it seems like it would help with this problem.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
cm3 10y ago
Given that Gitlab provides a superset of Github's features, it's possible to operate on both platforms, while clearly indicating where the primary location is. Gitlab has built-in CI, so that can be used exclusively there, and it will be one incentive for users to come to a project's Gitlab instance instead. Personally, I like hosting a repository on Github plus Gitlab for availability reasons, but if Github would finally allow disabling pull requests as well, one could easily make Github a read-only mirror. In light of non-existence of project patch, ticket, release, wiki interoperability protocols, we will either adopt more of FossilSCM's features into git addons (like git-appraise) or someone will write adapters. The most concerning aspect of all of this is that projects that have access to hosted FOSS servers which are fast and under (semi-)direct control give in to peer pressure and move to a closed platform like Github. If, say, Freedesktop.org would run a Gitlab instance, it would prevent the move to Github. I cannot be the first one to think of that.
- cm3 10y ago
  It would be nice if git would know of multiple remotes in such a way that one could ask it to pull from a random one or fall back to one of the others if the selected is unreachable. Like DNS records for a host. This would be an improvement of the distributed and highly available characteristics of a DVCS.
  - heartsucker 10y ago
    for remote in $(git remote); do git pull $remote master && break done
- sitkack 10y ago
  One alternative is to also push to gitlab/bitbucket/private with some layered snapshots for backups. I still remember all the "free press" github when they nuked all the repos.
  - cm3 10y ago
    > One alternative is to also push to gitlab/bitbucket/private with some layered snapshots for backups. Can you explain what you mean by "layered snapshots for backups"? The convention is to push to several remotes because that's part of git's dna, so what's the improvement you're suggesting? > I still remember all the "free press" github when they nuked all the repos. What "free press" incident are you referring to?
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
Tell these people to take a walk. Seriously, if their nose is too high, why bother with them anyway? The geeks and nerds have become the bullies. It's sad.

by JD557 10y ago

davisonio 10y ago

> no project would move there because "everybody is on GitHub". If they had a solid sync service between GitLab and GitHub; PRs, issues, code, everything then things could get interesting and some people might consider the switch.

jobvandervoort 10y ago
Right now you can import your entire project easily in GitLab, from GitHub (incl everything) [0]. You can also sync any remote repository (two-ways) [1] in GitLab EE (which runs on GitLab.com). I made an issue for a continuous sync in GitLab [2]. Would love to get your feedback. [0]: http://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/importing/import_projects_from_github.html#sts=Import http://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/importing/import_projects... your project from GitHub to GitLab [1]: http://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/repository_mirroring.html http://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/repository_mirroring.html [2]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/904 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/904

abstractbeliefs 10y ago

The worst thing is that eventually, github will start to want to monetise even more, and we'll see it turn into SourceForge, at which point many projects that have tied themselves into github rather than spreading out more carefully amongst other git hosts will face a bit of an existential crisis. We'll never learn.

nerdwaller 10y ago
This is part of why I have some issue with the Golang packaging story, it pretty much requires you to refer to dependent packages as `host.com/user/pkg`, so in most cases it's `github.com/...`. You can manually rewrite this, but that's not really ideal.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- piotrkubisa 10y ago
  In case whether 'search & replace' method is not an option you may create your own 'proxy' server like gopkg.in [1], since Golang packages don't have to be only on GitHub [2] you may set up mirroring rules to overcome problems with package location, version/revision, or library when GitHub downtime may occur. Personally, I don't think if creating own proxy server as solution would be quite big deal whether there are many various dependency tools for Go. 'Search & replace' is not mission impossible either. Go is not PHP - it just won't compile if (local) dependency is broken. [1]: https://github.com/niemeyer/gopkg https://github.com/niemeyer/gopkg [2]: https://golang.org/cmd/go/#hdr-Remote_import_paths https://golang.org/cmd/go/#hdr-Remote_import_paths

trumbitta2 10y ago

If Gitlab is listening (like they often do), I think we just figured out a solid plan: 1. Fix the speed problem 2. Build yourself such a meta search engine for OSS projects

cm3 10y ago
And advertise the built-in CI feature in a major way.
- sytse 10y ago
  We changed our homepage to reflect all the things you can do with GitLab? https://about.gitlab.com/ https://about.gitlab.com/ What other things do you think we should do?
  - cm3 10y ago
    The features are all listed, but just by glancing over the site it's not clear what extra features are provided on gitlab.com for open source projects that would require webhooks to external services on github and the associated security risks. So, in addition to listing features of Gitlab Community and EE it would be helpful to see that for example there is built-in CI support that targets X platforms.
jobvandervoort 10y ago
We're always listening. 1. We're working on the speed. It has gotten a lot better with the last few releases. The release of tomorrow is another big step, especially for diffs. We have a number of issues for this, I'm linking one of the meta issue here, but be sure to check the release of tomorrow for graphs and whatnot [0] 2. It's definitely an interesting idea. I made an issue [1]. Love it if you would provide some feedback. I wonder whether we'd be allowed to do such a thing, but it seems to be in the interest of the end-user, which is a good thing. [0]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/infrastructure/issues/59 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/infrastructure/issues/59 [1]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/903 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/903

snarfy 10y ago

Instead of meta-search, git needs meta repositories. I should be able to specify an alias which represents multiple repositories, not just URLs like it does now. This way I could upload to e.g. @myrepo and have it upload across github, gitlab, and other git based hosts. Sure it could be done pretty easily with shell scripts, but it would help the cause if it were built in to git. I'm a git novice so it may already have this feature, but if not it seems like it would help with this problem.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

cm3 10y ago

Given that Gitlab provides a superset of Github's features, it's possible to operate on both platforms, while clearly indicating where the primary location is. Gitlab has built-in CI, so that can be used exclusively there, and it will be one incentive for users to come to a project's Gitlab instance instead. Personally, I like hosting a repository on Github plus Gitlab for availability reasons, but if Github would finally allow disabling pull requests as well, one could easily make Github a read-only mirror. In light of non-existence of project patch, ticket, release, wiki interoperability protocols, we will either adopt more of FossilSCM's features into git addons (like git-appraise) or someone will write adapters. The most concerning aspect of all of this is that projects that have access to hosted FOSS servers which are fast and under (semi-)direct control give in to peer pressure and move to a closed platform like Github. If, say, Freedesktop.org would run a Gitlab instance, it would prevent the move to Github. I cannot be the first one to think of that.

cm3 10y ago
It would be nice if git would know of multiple remotes in such a way that one could ask it to pull from a random one or fall back to one of the others if the selected is unreachable. Like DNS records for a host. This would be an improvement of the distributed and highly available characteristics of a DVCS.
- heartsucker 10y ago
  for remote in $(git remote); do git pull $remote master && break done
sitkack 10y ago
One alternative is to also push to gitlab/bitbucket/private with some layered snapshots for backups. I still remember all the "free press" github when they nuked all the repos.
- cm3 10y ago
  > One alternative is to also push to gitlab/bitbucket/private with some layered snapshots for backups. Can you explain what you mean by "layered snapshots for backups"? The convention is to push to several remotes because that's part of git's dna, so what's the improvement you're suggesting? > I still remember all the "free press" github when they nuked all the repos. What "free press" incident are you referring to?

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

Tell these people to take a walk. Seriously, if their nose is too high, why bother with them anyway? The geeks and nerds have become the bullies. It's sad.