3 ms·
Not OP, but as a majority user of Gitlab the only downside is integrations. By that I specifically mean Codeship. It's just not considered a first class citizen
by kaishiro 10y ago
Not OP, but as a majority user of Gitlab the only downside is integrations. By that I specifically mean Codeship. It's just not considered a first class citizen to some yet, which is unfortunate.
- sytse 10y agoCodeship support might happen, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12697135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12697135 In the meantime, is there anything that we can improve in GitLab CI to make your switch possible?
- kaishiro 10y agoTo be completely honest - probably nothing. This is a legacy issue on our end, not yours. I haven't even taken the time to explore migrating our GH/Codeship builds to GL CI. We essentially mirror our repos amongst both offerings at the moment, running builds via Codeship until either they support GL and we can drop GH, or we get the time to spend on a proper Codeship => GH CI migration and we can drop Codeship. Anyone's guess what will win out at this point :) Appreciate the response either way.
- sytse 10y agoThanks for the reply!
- moritzplassnig 10y agoFor us at Codeship, it has nothing to do with not taking GitLab seriously, not treating them as first-class citizen, etc. We'll add GitLab support, hopefully, sooner than later. There are simply other feature requests that are more important for existing customers that are already using Codeship.
- kaishiro 10y agoSure, and just to be clear that wasn't me straight griping. Completely understand you guys have priorities. Just doesnt change the fact that it's an existing pain point for heavy Gitlab users.