> That's where Gitlab should be putting their efforts, in building a solid platform for dev and ops taking code to production instead of acquiring middle-of-the

> That's where Gitlab should be putting their efforts, in building a solid platform for dev and ops taking code to production instead of acquiring middle-of-the-road in-between tech like Peach Tech and Fuzzit, that add complexity to the core offering without checking many boxes for the clients seriously on the lookout for app/api testing. IMO acquiring a small business does not shift focus away from other parts of the product. Peach Tech and Fuzzit now have the support of the rest of GitLab and that benefits everyone. I don't know the headcount of the two companies that were acquired but I would think this would be equivalent to spinning off a small team to focus on an area (fuzzing) that could add value to the greater software community. The idea that these companies were acquired to check a checkbox is disrespectful to the work that they were doing before the acquisition. When GitLab decided to give the `.gitlab-ci.yml` a try it was a risk. It seems to have paid off because others started to copy them. Introducing fuzzing to be part of the devops life cycle could be thought of the same way. > Focus on the platform, enabling integrated customization and implementation robustness while orchestrating the outside moving parts and a great plugin ecosystem. Then get that certification program going strong. Right now your competitor Github "are belong to" Microsoft, and MS, better or worse, sure can do the platform thing for the many sizes of businesses where the meat of your revenue is truly coming from. It sounds like you have some amazing ideas. Contribute them https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/new https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/new. The issue tracker isn't the equivalent of `/dev/null`. Community contribution is the core of GitLab. Everyone can contribute. GitHub might host a lot of open source but GitLab is open source.