3 ms·
I think what GitLab really needs is what a lot of open source projects are lacking: popular community forks. Their product development benefits from the communi
by deckar01 7y ago
I think what GitLab really needs is what a lot of open source projects are lacking: popular community forks. Their product development benefits from the community's QA feedback, but there are no community forks (that I am aware of) that are taking GitLab CE in directions that gitlab-org won't go. IO did this for Node and everyone has benefitted.
I think GitHub's UX has caused new developers to lose true meaning of fork. When software doesn't work the way you want it to, you fork it, and if other people want it enough, they will merge it into their own forks and maybe some day it will get adopted upstream.
- sytse 7y agoWe had companies forking GitLab instead of contributing upstream, they all fell behind with upstream and couldn’t keep up to date anymore. Any examples of things you see that we at GitLab Inc. are not open to?
- deckar01 7y agohttps://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?state=opened&author_username=deckar01 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?state=opened&... As more of the feature development goes into EE, there is less of a need to back port the latest changes. There are tons of workflow processes I would love to more tightly integrate with GitLab, but not all of them would make sense outside of my organization. Some of them can be hacked together with bots, but some of them require extending the core functionality and would probably require a fork. > forking GitLab instead of contributing upstream I think this is the problematic mindset. Meaningful contributions to upstream will follow useful forks. > they all fell behind with upstream and couldn’t keep up to date anymore. Code churn doesn't just slow down forks, it slows down core development.