5 ms·

What are peoples opinions on gitlab? It wasn’t mentioned in this article, I’m wondering if it was a willful omission.

cybrox 4y ago
I do really like GitLab, I use it at work daily. But they manage to change and sometimes break the UI in every update and it just gets more and more bloated every day. - At least that's what it feels like.
mhfs 4y ago
It's mentioned a couple of times in the article as well as in https://sfconservancy.org/GiveUpGitHub/ https://sfconservancy.org/GiveUpGitHub/
- remram 4y ago
  Why does that page exist and why is it linked from the article, given that https://giveupgithub.org https://giveupgithub.org also exists?
pabs3 4y ago
GitLab is mentioned on the advocacy page https://giveupgithub.org/ https://giveupgithub.org/. GitLab is an open-core business, which means there is a permissively licensed FOSS version and a proprietary version. The gitlab.com website uses the proprietary version. In addition many features of GitLab don't work at all or work much less well if you turn off JavaScript. They have swayed a lot of ostensibly FOSS, copyleft-leaning and privacy/security-centric projects to use it, despite the business model and license.
- joshstrange 4y ago
  > In addition many features of GitLab don't work at all or work much less well if you turn off JavaScript. I feel like the venn diagram of people who complain about JS being required and of people who have never had to code up a web /app/ that users expect rich interactions without a page-reload is just a circle.
  - account42 4y ago
    No one is asking your to not progressively enhance the experience with javascript only that it is not needed to access the content.
  - Nemo157 4y ago
    JS being required for the interactive features would be fine. My personal problem is that I end up on some random gitlab instance to just take a look at the source or issues for some library, and get a blank white page. For the read-only public view there should be no need for any JS.
    - joshstrange 4y ago
      I understand that thinking but it's ignores reality. To do what you want you want means maintaining 2 codebases (even if just for sub-parts of a site). It's really easy to say "This specific page could be static" and you are right, it could, but it would mean having fallbacks for every JS interaction on the page (or removing them if the user has JS disabled). There simply aren't enough people who die on the no-JS hill to care about, especially since it means ongoing development maintenance, testing, design/UI work, and the list goes on.
      - doodlesdev 4y ago
        Or you could server render the pages and hydrate them as needed which is something easy to do with NextJS, NuxtJS, Remix, Fresh, among other modern frameworks for developing with JavaScripts libs.
      - nyanpasu64 4y ago
        GitLab is built on JS and renders a white screen without JS. Enabling JS at all taxes my Core 2 Duo machine, and opening GitLab to a few thousand line file (or worse yet, opening the pull request diff view) taxes my top-of-the-line Ryzen 5 5600X machine running Firefox. GitLab is just badly written.
    - zzo38computer 4y ago
xigoi 4y ago
In my experience, GitLab is extremely slow compared to other Git hosts.
- sofixa 4y ago
  I see you haven't had the displeasure of using Bitbucket.
deadbunny 4y ago
I was a big fan of GitLab until the recent changes they've made on regards to their free tier and the hoops required to qualify for their Open Source plans. I'm part of a small FOSS project with about 20 contributors but the changes mean we can now only have 5 max in the Project without paying for licenses or moving the Project to its own namespace and going through an application process for GitLab Ultimate for Open Source (or whatever it's called) which needs to be resubmitted yearly. I fully understand they are not required to provide services for free but this follows the CI runner allowance reductions - fairly - recently (which is understandable, compute costs money) doesn't give me much confidence for hosting smaller to medium FOSS projects without having to jump further hoops while shouting about how open source they are whittling down their offerings to the bone.

I do really like GitLab, I use it at work daily. But they manage to change and sometimes break the UI in every update and it just gets more and more bloated every day. - At least that's what it feels like.

mhfs 4y ago

It's mentioned a couple of times in the article as well as in https://sfconservancy.org/GiveUpGitHub/ https://sfconservancy.org/GiveUpGitHub/

remram 4y ago
Why does that page exist and why is it linked from the article, given that https://giveupgithub.org https://giveupgithub.org also exists?

pabs3 4y ago

GitLab is mentioned on the advocacy page https://giveupgithub.org/ https://giveupgithub.org/. GitLab is an open-core business, which means there is a permissively licensed FOSS version and a proprietary version. The gitlab.com website uses the proprietary version. In addition many features of GitLab don't work at all or work much less well if you turn off JavaScript. They have swayed a lot of ostensibly FOSS, copyleft-leaning and privacy/security-centric projects to use it, despite the business model and license.

joshstrange 4y ago
> In addition many features of GitLab don't work at all or work much less well if you turn off JavaScript. I feel like the venn diagram of people who complain about JS being required and of people who have never had to code up a web /app/ that users expect rich interactions without a page-reload is just a circle.
- account42 4y ago
  No one is asking your to not progressively enhance the experience with javascript only that it is not needed to access the content.
- Nemo157 4y ago
  JS being required for the interactive features would be fine. My personal problem is that I end up on some random gitlab instance to just take a look at the source or issues for some library, and get a blank white page. For the read-only public view there should be no need for any JS.
  - joshstrange 4y ago
    I understand that thinking but it's ignores reality. To do what you want you want means maintaining 2 codebases (even if just for sub-parts of a site). It's really easy to say "This specific page could be static" and you are right, it could, but it would mean having fallbacks for every JS interaction on the page (or removing them if the user has JS disabled). There simply aren't enough people who die on the no-JS hill to care about, especially since it means ongoing development maintenance, testing, design/UI work, and the list goes on.
    - doodlesdev 4y ago
      Or you could server render the pages and hydrate them as needed which is something easy to do with NextJS, NuxtJS, Remix, Fresh, among other modern frameworks for developing with JavaScripts libs.
    - nyanpasu64 4y ago
      GitLab is built on JS and renders a white screen without JS. Enabling JS at all taxes my Core 2 Duo machine, and opening GitLab to a few thousand line file (or worse yet, opening the pull request diff view) taxes my top-of-the-line Ryzen 5 5600X machine running Firefox. GitLab is just badly written.
  - zzo38computer 4y ago

xigoi 4y ago

In my experience, GitLab is extremely slow compared to other Git hosts.

sofixa 4y ago
I see you haven't had the displeasure of using Bitbucket.

deadbunny 4y ago

I was a big fan of GitLab until the recent changes they've made on regards to their free tier and the hoops required to qualify for their Open Source plans. I'm part of a small FOSS project with about 20 contributors but the changes mean we can now only have 5 max in the Project without paying for licenses or moving the Project to its own namespace and going through an application process for GitLab Ultimate for Open Source (or whatever it's called) which needs to be resubmitted yearly. I fully understand they are not required to provide services for free but this follows the CI runner allowance reductions - fairly - recently (which is understandable, compute costs money) doesn't give me much confidence for hosting smaller to medium FOSS projects without having to jump further hoops while shouting about how open source they are whittling down their offerings to the bone.