3 ms·
Given that Gitlab is open source, adding a NewSQL DB into the mix would be pushing that dependency to downstream users, who would then have to take on the maint
by mnutt 9y ago
Given that Gitlab is open source, adding a NewSQL DB into the mix would be pushing that dependency to downstream users, who would then have to take on the maintenance burden. It may end up being the right call from a performance standpoint but just too complex to ask users to manage.
- kodablah 9y agoThis burden already exists with dependencies (and we should probably say downstream "admins" instead of "users" to clarify). A self-hosted app should not be hamstrung by its initial dependency choices. If tested and implemented properly it can go from optional experimental flag, to multiple-storage-backends-supported abstraction, to [maybe] even we're-migrating-to-new-storage-backend, etc. The primary downside in these cases is the flexibility often provided to plugin and extension writers which marries them to early tech choices. The more admins that demand low change count on forward movement are indirectly the reason many companies choose to offer SaaS only where the visibility and flexibility are removed. Note, I'm not saying this is the case with GitLab at all and I assume Postgres will remain the primary choice for most of their DB uses in perpetuity, but for some use cases there is better tech to use and the only reason to say no shouldn't just be a dependency addition (though it is often a good reason among many to say no).
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]