6 ms·

A small note: what's the difference between GitLab, GitHub etc? Are they companies with a substantially identical target: making money? Does they offer storage

by xte 8y ago

A small note: what's the difference between GitLab, GitHub etc? Are they companies with a substantially identical target: making money? Does they offer storage on their own server (or even worse others servers in a chain)? So why the hell instead of moving from a company to another ANY FOSS dev do not came back to classic ML (mirrored offline in personal maildir) and use hosting, multiple if possible, only as a mean to offer a shared repo? Why not even serve the project via the repo itself like fossil? There is a world outside the web, on our desktops. Just as a suggestion: try to disconnect your desktop and look what you can or can't do. If you feel "empty" you are in danger.

saagarjha 8y ago
The reason people put their code online is because it is a convenient way to host it, and often platforms like these have some ancillary tools that make the code easy to work with.
- xte 8y ago
  Yep for simply putting it on-line, but using platform features like GitHub pull-request, wikis, pages etc means voluntary tie to a platform. If I only use Git{Hub,Lab}, Phabricator, ... as a repo host no problem, I can change as I want.
- u801e 8y ago
  There's nothing in the classic mailing list workflow that prevents hosting the code online for others to view. The Linux[1] and git[2] projects mirror their code on Github, for example. [1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux https://github.com/torvalds/linux [2] https://github.com/git/git https://github.com/git/git
unixhero 8y ago
Gitlab also runs locally.
- brodock 8y ago
  We also provide an Export tarball with everything inside you project, including the repo, issues, merge request content, etc. We do not lock you up in a walled garden. It's also easy to import the whole project/group from one instance to another.
PurpleRamen 8y ago
Classic ML sucks, and gitlab is opensource that can be selfhosted. The world evolved and offers now better environments than 20 years ago. No reason to stay behind.
- xte 8y ago
  Well for me "evolving" from a standard thing to a monster web app that require far more resources and offer far less flexibility have a name: involution... Of course I know that many are limited to webmails or obsolete, limiting and limited MUAs from the '90s but that's again involution. If you have notmuch/emacs or (neo)vim *{mutt,pine} you have a far more advanced computing environment that no web up can even try to mach. "stay behind" today's often means stay in a modern and colorful stone age instead of powerful technology.
- u801e 8y ago
  > Classic ML sucks Could you elaborate on why that is? The git and linux kernel projects have been using this workflow for decades and it works very well for them. > The world evolved and offers now better environments than 20 years ago. I think that's largely subjective. I have experience reviewing code via email and via a Github Enterprise instance. The Github based review requires far more scrolling and makes it difficult to find comments that were made and how they were resolved. Plus, it makes the implicit assumption that a comment was resolved if the line commented on was changed in any way regardless of whether or not the change is related to the comment made. When that happens, it collapses the comment thread and requires that I expand them to find out what I commented on and determine whether it was addressed by going to another tab to read through the entire diff, find the approximate location of the line I commented on and see if it was changed as I expected. With the email based workflow, my email client has a built in index of all the comments made on a patch set threaded by commit that I can click on and I can quickly find the comments I made and any responses to them (and whether or not I've already read them). I can easily get different versions of the patch set and run a diff between them to see what changed (either on the entire diff or on each individual commit). > The world evolved and offers now better environments than 20 years ago. No reason to stay behind. I believe that if something should be considered an improvement, then it should have all the capabilities of the previous version and introduce new features that were not possible to accomplish in the previous version. It shouldn't make things that were easy to do in the previous version more difficult or impossible to do.

by xte 8y ago

saagarjha 8y ago

The reason people put their code online is because it is a convenient way to host it, and often platforms like these have some ancillary tools that make the code easy to work with.

xte 8y ago
Yep for simply putting it on-line, but using platform features like GitHub pull-request, wikis, pages etc means voluntary tie to a platform. If I only use Git{Hub,Lab}, Phabricator, ... as a repo host no problem, I can change as I want.
u801e 8y ago
There's nothing in the classic mailing list workflow that prevents hosting the code online for others to view. The Linux[1] and git[2] projects mirror their code on Github, for example. [1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux https://github.com/torvalds/linux [2] https://github.com/git/git https://github.com/git/git

unixhero 8y ago

Gitlab also runs locally.

brodock 8y ago
We also provide an Export tarball with everything inside you project, including the repo, issues, merge request content, etc. We do not lock you up in a walled garden. It's also easy to import the whole project/group from one instance to another.

PurpleRamen 8y ago

Classic ML sucks, and gitlab is opensource that can be selfhosted. The world evolved and offers now better environments than 20 years ago. No reason to stay behind.

xte 8y ago
Well for me "evolving" from a standard thing to a monster web app that require far more resources and offer far less flexibility have a name: involution... Of course I know that many are limited to webmails or obsolete, limiting and limited MUAs from the '90s but that's again involution. If you have notmuch/emacs or (neo)vim *{mutt,pine} you have a far more advanced computing environment that no web up can even try to mach. "stay behind" today's often means stay in a modern and colorful stone age instead of powerful technology.
u801e 8y ago
> Classic ML sucks Could you elaborate on why that is? The git and linux kernel projects have been using this workflow for decades and it works very well for them. > The world evolved and offers now better environments than 20 years ago. I think that's largely subjective. I have experience reviewing code via email and via a Github Enterprise instance. The Github based review requires far more scrolling and makes it difficult to find comments that were made and how they were resolved. Plus, it makes the implicit assumption that a comment was resolved if the line commented on was changed in any way regardless of whether or not the change is related to the comment made. When that happens, it collapses the comment thread and requires that I expand them to find out what I commented on and determine whether it was addressed by going to another tab to read through the entire diff, find the approximate location of the line I commented on and see if it was changed as I expected. With the email based workflow, my email client has a built in index of all the comments made on a patch set threaded by commit that I can click on and I can quickly find the comments I made and any responses to them (and whether or not I've already read them). I can easily get different versions of the patch set and run a diff between them to see what changed (either on the entire diff or on each individual commit). > The world evolved and offers now better environments than 20 years ago. No reason to stay behind. I believe that if something should be considered an improvement, then it should have all the capabilities of the previous version and introduce new features that were not possible to accomplish in the previous version. It shouldn't make things that were easy to do in the previous version more difficult or impossible to do.