9 ms·

Gitlab 5.0 released, Gitolite now gone

181 points by Spiritus 14y ago

sytse 14y ago
Sytse Sijbrandij from GitLab.com here. Thank you for submitting this. We hope people like the change. We put a lot of hard working in making GitLab more stable and scaling it. Let us know what you think.
- Argorak 14y ago
  Hi Sytse, Just for future reference: Its common courtesy to give attributions next to contributed changes in the changelog. I gladly sponsored development of one of them (API: improved return codes and docs, https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/pull/2835 https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/pull/2835) and a short nod to the involved persons would be nice. Keep up the good work, thank you!
  - sytse 14y ago
    Hi Arhorak, Thank you for the reference. I think attributing the authors is a good idea. I've created https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/pull/3303 https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/pull/3303 What do you think? Is it ok to attribute to the full name? Best regards, Sytse
    - Argorak 14y ago
      Hi, in the Padrino project, we usually attribute by (GH) nickname, because thats what most programmers build their identity around. Also, all involved are mentioned. In that case, it would be: - API: improved return codes and docs. (Xylakant, justahero) See ours: https://github.com/padrino/padrino-framework/blob/master/CHANGES.rdoc https://github.com/padrino/padrino-framework/blob/master/CHA...
      - sytse 14y ago
        Good points. I've added Sebastian Ziebell. About mentioning usernames, I figured it might get a bit confusing when we get public projects on GitLab.com, you would have to guess which platform the username belongs to. What do you think?
        sytse 14y ago
        Thanks for understanding in https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/pull/3303#discussion_r3493319 https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/pull/3303#discussion_r3... The attribution was merged and is live on https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/blob/master/CHANGELOG#L27 https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/blob/master/CHANGELOG#L...
        Argorak 14y ago
        And thanks to you from our side :)!
whalesalad 14y ago
I think its hilarious that all the Gitlab development is occurring on Github.
- sytse 14y ago
  We're pragmatic about the development of GitLab. A lot of people want public projects, it is the most popular request for GitLab http://gitlab.uservoice.com/forums/176466-general/suggestions/3159951-allow-public-repositories http://gitlab.uservoice.com/forums/176466-general/suggestion...
  - jurre 14y ago
    Next Amsterdam.rb hackathon we'll get it done :D
    - sytse 14y ago
      Looking forward to that! After the previous hackathon we made many improvements to GitLab Vagrant VM :-)
  - timmow 14y ago
    Public projects and the need to add every single developer to every single project they needed access to (no concept of teams) were the main reasons we moved from Gitlab to Github Enterprise
    - sytse 14y ago
      FYI GitLab has teams of users, groups of projects and public clone now. Completely public repo's is being discussed http://gitlab.uservoice.com/forums/176466-general/suggestions/3159951-allow-public-repositories http://gitlab.uservoice.com/forums/176466-general/suggestion...
- aus_ 14y ago
  I believe the developers chose to develop on GitHub so the project would get more exposure to the open source community. And because Gitlab.com is more oriented to private repository hosting. [1] [1]: https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/issues/3187 https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/issues/3187
randx 14y ago
+1
pedoh 14y ago
From the front page of gitlab.org: "A fast, secure and stable solution based on Rails & Gitolite." Gitolite is gone, long live gitolite?
- sytse 14y ago
  Good point, I send Dmitriy a merge request for this just now.
- sytse 14y ago
  Dmitriy merged my change and updated http://gitlab.org/ http://gitlab.org/
jamesmoss 14y ago
The move away from Gitolite is great as I know it was the source of many of install and upgrade headaches however the new component they've replaced it with is very very closely coupled to GitLab. This could have been a great chance to create a lightweight alternative to Gitolite for other projects to use too.
- sytse 14y ago
  Yes, we hope to make installing and upgrading GitLab much easier this way. We wanted to allow other projects to use GitLab-shell too, that is why we made it a separate project https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlab-shell https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlab-shell
  - jamesmoss 14y ago
    I know that but much of the authentication and post receive stuff is hard coded to point at the GitLab API. If you could abstract this it'd be great.
    - sytse 14y ago
      We are open to proposals and pull requests to do this. It is not very productive to abstract things without a few examples of projects it should be generalized for.
aus_ 14y ago
I'd like to thank the developers for this great project. I finally convinced my team to switch over from SVN to git after I showed them Gitlab. (GitHub was never an option due to corporate data security policies. Even for GitHub private repos.)
- sytse 14y ago
  You are welcome! Glad you like it and thank you for speaking up.
- niggler 14y ago
  Did you consider github enterprise or atlassian stash? I personally think gitlab is preferable, but github and bit bucket offer internal deployments.
- ergo14 14y ago
  have you heard of http://rhodecode.org/ http://rhodecode.org/ ? It supports both HG and git.
bentaber 14y ago
The speed at which this project is evolving is quite impressive. I find myself looking forward the the 22nd every month with anticipation for the next release! Thank you Gitlab team.
- sytse 14y ago
  We look forward to the friendly HN comments after the release :-)
cmurphycode 14y ago
I set up gitlab for some "skunkworks" projects at my day job, and it's been really great. The Gitolite dep never bothered me (the gitlab install is well documented), but seems like a good thing. Thanks for your hard work, guys and gals!
- sytse 14y ago
  You're welcome, hope your skunkworks project becomes the golden standard :-)
mattdeboard 14y ago
I really want to give this a go but would like to have it set up to shadow the state of our repos in Github. Anyone have any experience with doing this? Also, when will the docs be updated to reflect the obviation of gitolite?
- sytse 14y ago
  The easiest way to shadow the state is to add gitlab as a remote to the repos and possibly automate this with a cronjob. Important docs on master should be up to date.
- pjungwir 14y ago
  For a big team you might want something else, but it's possible to configure two repos as one "remote" so that a push goes to both: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/165092/can-i-push-to-more-than-one-repository-in-a-single-command-in-git
  - mattdeboard 14y ago
    Interesting, thanks.
chacham15 14y ago
I am running Gitlab on an AWS micro-instance which has memory problems with the previous version. Thanks for working hard and improving performance!
- sytse 14y ago
  You're welcome, thanks for posting!
cs02rm0 14y ago
I'll look forward to bitnami building an installer for it.
- sytse 14y ago
  BitNami just released an installer. We hope they upgrade it to 5.0 soon http://blog.bitnami.com/2013/03/gitlab-now-part-of-bitnami.html http://blog.bitnami.com/2013/03/gitlab-now-part-of-bitnami.h...
ergo14 14y ago
There is also http://rhodecode.org/ http://rhodecode.org/ which i highly recommend
moneypenny 14y ago
HURRAH! Gitlab is an excellent product but Gitolite and Resque were making the baby Jesus cry, ran off with your girlfriend and kicked a kid over on his bicycle. V5: Thanks very much, team Gitlab.
_JamesA_ 14y ago
This is great news as Gitolite was the one thing that prevented me from giving Gitlab a try. What are the minimum requirements for a light Gitlab installation? I can't find any recommendations on the site. The thought of deploying Gitlab on a Linode 512 for $20 a month with virtually unlimited private repositories is very exciting.
- sytse 14y ago
  We don't have minimum requirements. We run GitLab.com with 3000+ users on a moderate (c1.medium, 1.7 GiB) instance. I think you will do fine with GitLab 5.0 and the 512 Linode. Might have to tune the default parameters a bit to have less processes running.
  - randx 14y ago
    In order to run GitLab w/o any tweaks you need 1GB Linode. You can start it on 512 but you need to setup unicorn to use only 1 worker and you need at least 200MB of swap
    - nonpme 14y ago
      Is 1GB really requred for personal use? I thought about buying 256/512 VPS exclusively for GitLab, don't you think it will be enough for personal projects? Maybe someone who has the knowledge can write tutorial about configuring GL to run on average VPS?
      - sytse 14y ago
        A post about tuning GitLab for low memory consumption would be very useful indeed.
        nonpme 14y ago
        Maybe someone will write one someday ;). And, as I have the chance, I want to thank you and whole GitLab team for a really great work! I'm using GL localy and I'm very pleased with it.
rektide 14y ago
Just yesterday our workplace gained an interest in setting up Gitlab- can we still use our existing Gitolite install, or do we now have to migrate to Gitlab-shell? We've been extremely happy with gitolite, and I do not see us moving off of that software.
- pfg 14y ago
  I don't think it's possible to use Gitolite with GitLab >= 5
  - jameswritescode 14y ago
    You're correct. gitlab-shell is required in 5.
    - rektide 14y ago
      Welp, there goes an obvious good thing we had high hopes would help enrich our infrastructure! Monday is going to be a very depressing day in the office for everyone: we're going to have to go to cgit or some such, and there'll probably be screaming and crying and whaling and self flagellation over that one. Ya'll should provide an easy to use configuration for using gitlab as a RO mirror of any arbitrary git repository. Hope you have a lot of great new things in the pipe that gitlab-shell is providing. If configuration was the problem, why not try and scrape gitolite's configuration directly and run gitlab from that? There's certainly another acceptable path- the one you took, creating your own repo server- but I have a hard time qualifying this- as this press release does- as a feature: it's a migration, a lateral jump: there's nothing new that happens, nothing better, it's just a different configuration routine to do what Gitlab and Gitosis. I wont be suckered by such suavity, but there's a lot of people who would be more enticed by "new super configurable way better than gitolite repo server" as a sales pitch that probably were happy enough running Gitlabs at it used to run that don't really see this as a feature, as they were already on top of it. When releasing features, put the featureful ones foremost.
      - sytse 14y ago
jbrooksuk 14y ago
Annoyingly there don't seem to be instructions or migrating from 4.2 to 5.0 when using MySQL and Apache. https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/wiki/From-4.2-to-5.0 https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/wiki/From-4.2-to-5.0
- jameswritescode 14y ago
  What parts are you getting snagged at?
aeontech 14y ago
Any news on supporting a single gitlab instance fronting several load-balanced git servers as backend? Or do both git repositories and gitlab still have to live on same machine?
- sytse 14y ago
  No news on this, the repo's need to be on a single volume (can be NFS drive or AWS EBS drive). I'm curious to know why you want this. We are looking into sharded file servers for GitLab.com Cloud but that seems a bit different from what you are proposing. If you don't feel comfortable commenting please email support@gitlab.com
m4tthumphrey 14y ago
I have been using Gitlab since version 3 and have found it a joy to work with and I too look forward to the 22nd every month. We use it in our internal network along with Jenkins for CI and a custom built deployment application. It all works very well with 15 developers and QA personnel. The new gitlab-shell hasn't made any difference whatsoever over gitolite and the update went as smoothly as possible. gitlabhq also offer Vagrant/Chef VM recipes to quickly get set up. I encourage anyone considering a change to their VCS/deployment set up to give it a try!
- sytse 14y ago
  Thank you for the kind comment m4tthumphrey! You probably are aware of GitLab CI that is a simpler alternative for Jenkins but I wanted to mention it just to make sure.
josephlord 14y ago
Congratulations, the project looks good. I will keep it in mind. I didn't install sometime ago partially because I was already running a Gitolite instance and wasn't sure it would play nice. Great to see Postgres support, can I ask why MySql is the recommended DB? The install instructions are still quite long but it is really good to see them done properly with a separate non-root user. The suggested Ruby version isn't the latest (even on the 1.9.3 branch) although I'm not sure that matters.
- sytse 14y ago
  About MySql, it is the db that most existing installations use and it is well tested. Also we had problems with deadlocks on Postgres during integration tests on Travis CI. I must admit that I think Postgres has the momentum and look forward to recommending it in the future. Good point about the ruby version, I made a pull request https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/pull/3305 https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/pull/3305
  - sytse 14y ago
    The pull request was merged into master
xipho 14y ago
The installation guide link on the homepage that takes you to Git is borked at present?!
- sytse 14y ago
  Good point, we're looking into it. For now you can use https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/blob/5-0-stable/doc/install/installation.md https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/blob/5-0-stable/doc/ins...
  - sytse 14y ago
    And it is fixed now.
- randx 14y ago
  fixed that with correct link
  - xipho 14y ago
    Great, thanks. Time to install, so insanely timely for our needs it's scary.
__david__ 14y ago
So I've been poking around the upgrade instructions for moving to gitlab-shell [1] and I notice you ask the user to do this: sudo chsh -s /bin/bash git I don't see it changing to anything else later in the instructions. Isn't that a huge security downgrade from using gitolite? Am I missing something? [1] https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/wiki/From-4.2-to-5.0 https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/wiki/From-4.2-to-5.0
- Hello71 14y ago
  If GitLab security were to be perfect, then this change would not affect security in any which way. However, if the .ssh/authorized_keys file were to be written erroneously, it is possible that this change may increase the likelihood of receiving a shell with the privileges of the git user and thus being able to affect repositories. However, it should not be possible on a system otherwise secured for such a user to obtain access to the rest of they system.
  - __david__ 14y ago
    > If GitLab security were to be perfect, then this change would not affect security in any which way. Yes, it does: right now users can use ssh to push and pull repos on my machine using gitolite but they do not have shell access to the computer. "ssh git@gitlab.example.com" just prints a short message and exits. With this change they can all just ssh into the computer and have a bash prompt. Trying to make that secure requires a whole different level of paranoia than just not letting people in in the first place. It also means that every gitlab user has access to every repo that's hosted and the permissions in the web interface are just for show. If this is really the case and the attitude of the devs then I don't think I will be updating any time soon... However, I still feel I must be missing something because the gitlab guys host private repos at gitlab.com and so they must have worked these security things out, right? I can't create an account at gitlab.com and just ssh into their server. At least, I really hope I can't.
    - Hello71 14y ago
      Question: What happens when you type `ssh git@github.com /bin/bash`? That command doesn't use the shell set in /etc/passwd at all, and you authenticate successfully, so it must give you a shell, right? No.
buster 14y ago
Last time i was installing gitlab after having the nightmare to install and maintain a gitorious installation and was really depressed that it felt like the same nightmare. Pages of pages of copy&paste instructions, followed by half a dozen issues that needed post-install fixing... no, never again.. I ended up installing gitblit and was amazed by the quick installation and features. Unpack&run! I can recommend gitblit to everyone who needs a quick&easy to install Git web frontend.. But gitlab definitely looks nicer, probably can do even more.. it has pull requests which are (yet) missing in gitblit.
- mbreese 14y ago
  I had the same issue a month or so ago. I needed to install a local Git repository and because I'd be working with people who had never used Git before, I wanted to have some kind of GUI for them. I looked at GitLab, Gitolite + gitweb, and Gitosis. GitLab's installation was the worst of the three. It was horrible, and seemed like it would have been impossible to maintain/upgrade. I really hope that the entire experience has improved. I ended up using Gitosis, and while I don't quite like the workflow, the installation was pretty easy (there was a bash script to run that installed and configured everything). I'm going to evaluate the new version of GitLab, but if the installation process isn't better, I'll just stick with Gitosis.
  - oso96_2000 14y ago
    I'm nowhere near a ruby developer, so i don't understand how most of the things works, but had cero trouble installing gitlab. Even when it throws some strange (for me) errors on some gems, it was just a matter of googling to solve the problem.
    - buster 14y ago
      Some years back i was able to tolerate when a webapp needed serious fiddling in a) apache configs, b) php configs and c) manual mysql database setup. Nowaday i expect something to run and have as few steps to install as possible. It wasn't even so much the many steps in between but the stuff that just didn't work as given in the installation guide. Turned out that some answers were in the gitlab Troubleshooting Guide. And then some stuff just didn't work, because at that point resque was removed (if i remember correctly, i don't even know what resque is and i don't really care, tbh). Now, after this took me 2 hours to get it running, half a day was spent with a) log in, b) find something not working, c) google, d) log into server and fix, e) repeat. I'm no ruby guy, too, but i would've thought this goes much smoother nowadays. I was using Gitlab for 1 or 2 weeks back then, but when the password reset didn't work it really made me think if i want to go through all that again on the next major update. So i turned to gitblit (which i rejected before because it can't do pull requests). Edit: Don't get me wrong, i liked the Gitlab interface, it's very polished and nice, and what was working was working fine. Still i wouldn't want to maintain it. Maybe it's all better now with 5.0 :)
xxiao 14y ago
I'm waiting for a C/C++ version, to run it on, say, 512MB memory efficiently. ruby, java, python, php are just too fat.

181 points by Spiritus 14y ago

sytse 14y ago

Sytse Sijbrandij from GitLab.com here. Thank you for submitting this. We hope people like the change. We put a lot of hard working in making GitLab more stable and scaling it. Let us know what you think.

Argorak 14y ago
Hi Sytse, Just for future reference: Its common courtesy to give attributions next to contributed changes in the changelog. I gladly sponsored development of one of them (API: improved return codes and docs, https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/pull/2835 https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/pull/2835) and a short nod to the involved persons would be nice. Keep up the good work, thank you!
- sytse 14y ago
  Hi Arhorak, Thank you for the reference. I think attributing the authors is a good idea. I've created https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/pull/3303 https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/pull/3303 What do you think? Is it ok to attribute to the full name? Best regards, Sytse
  - Argorak 14y ago
    Hi, in the Padrino project, we usually attribute by (GH) nickname, because thats what most programmers build their identity around. Also, all involved are mentioned. In that case, it would be: - API: improved return codes and docs. (Xylakant, justahero) See ours: https://github.com/padrino/padrino-framework/blob/master/CHANGES.rdoc https://github.com/padrino/padrino-framework/blob/master/CHA...
    - sytse 14y ago
      Good points. I've added Sebastian Ziebell. About mentioning usernames, I figured it might get a bit confusing when we get public projects on GitLab.com, you would have to guess which platform the username belongs to. What do you think?
      - sytse 14y ago
        Thanks for understanding in https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/pull/3303#discussion_r3493319 https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/pull/3303#discussion_r3... The attribution was merged and is live on https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/blob/master/CHANGELOG#L27 https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/blob/master/CHANGELOG#L...
        Argorak 14y ago
        And thanks to you from our side :)!

whalesalad 14y ago

I think its hilarious that all the Gitlab development is occurring on Github.

sytse 14y ago
We're pragmatic about the development of GitLab. A lot of people want public projects, it is the most popular request for GitLab http://gitlab.uservoice.com/forums/176466-general/suggestions/3159951-allow-public-repositories http://gitlab.uservoice.com/forums/176466-general/suggestion...
- jurre 14y ago
  Next Amsterdam.rb hackathon we'll get it done :D
  - sytse 14y ago
    Looking forward to that! After the previous hackathon we made many improvements to GitLab Vagrant VM :-)
- timmow 14y ago
  Public projects and the need to add every single developer to every single project they needed access to (no concept of teams) were the main reasons we moved from Gitlab to Github Enterprise
  - sytse 14y ago
    FYI GitLab has teams of users, groups of projects and public clone now. Completely public repo's is being discussed http://gitlab.uservoice.com/forums/176466-general/suggestions/3159951-allow-public-repositories http://gitlab.uservoice.com/forums/176466-general/suggestion...
aus_ 14y ago
I believe the developers chose to develop on GitHub so the project would get more exposure to the open source community. And because Gitlab.com is more oriented to private repository hosting. [1] [1]: https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/issues/3187 https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/issues/3187

randx 14y ago

pedoh 14y ago

From the front page of gitlab.org: "A fast, secure and stable solution based on Rails & Gitolite." Gitolite is gone, long live gitolite?

sytse 14y ago
Good point, I send Dmitriy a merge request for this just now.
sytse 14y ago
Dmitriy merged my change and updated http://gitlab.org/ http://gitlab.org/

jamesmoss 14y ago

The move away from Gitolite is great as I know it was the source of many of install and upgrade headaches however the new component they've replaced it with is very very closely coupled to GitLab. This could have been a great chance to create a lightweight alternative to Gitolite for other projects to use too.

sytse 14y ago
Yes, we hope to make installing and upgrading GitLab much easier this way. We wanted to allow other projects to use GitLab-shell too, that is why we made it a separate project https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlab-shell https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlab-shell
- jamesmoss 14y ago
  I know that but much of the authentication and post receive stuff is hard coded to point at the GitLab API. If you could abstract this it'd be great.
  - sytse 14y ago
    We are open to proposals and pull requests to do this. It is not very productive to abstract things without a few examples of projects it should be generalized for.

aus_ 14y ago

I'd like to thank the developers for this great project. I finally convinced my team to switch over from SVN to git after I showed them Gitlab. (GitHub was never an option due to corporate data security policies. Even for GitHub private repos.)

sytse 14y ago
You are welcome! Glad you like it and thank you for speaking up.
niggler 14y ago
Did you consider github enterprise or atlassian stash? I personally think gitlab is preferable, but github and bit bucket offer internal deployments.
ergo14 14y ago
have you heard of http://rhodecode.org/ http://rhodecode.org/ ? It supports both HG and git.

bentaber 14y ago

The speed at which this project is evolving is quite impressive. I find myself looking forward the the 22nd every month with anticipation for the next release! Thank you Gitlab team.

sytse 14y ago
We look forward to the friendly HN comments after the release :-)

cmurphycode 14y ago

I set up gitlab for some "skunkworks" projects at my day job, and it's been really great. The Gitolite dep never bothered me (the gitlab install is well documented), but seems like a good thing. Thanks for your hard work, guys and gals!

sytse 14y ago
You're welcome, hope your skunkworks project becomes the golden standard :-)

mattdeboard 14y ago

I really want to give this a go but would like to have it set up to shadow the state of our repos in Github. Anyone have any experience with doing this? Also, when will the docs be updated to reflect the obviation of gitolite?

sytse 14y ago
The easiest way to shadow the state is to add gitlab as a remote to the repos and possibly automate this with a cronjob. Important docs on master should be up to date.
pjungwir 14y ago
For a big team you might want something else, but it's possible to configure two repos as one "remote" so that a push goes to both: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/165092/can-i-push-to-more-than-one-repository-in-a-single-command-in-git
- mattdeboard 14y ago
  Interesting, thanks.

chacham15 14y ago

I am running Gitlab on an AWS micro-instance which has memory problems with the previous version. Thanks for working hard and improving performance!

sytse 14y ago
You're welcome, thanks for posting!

cs02rm0 14y ago

I'll look forward to bitnami building an installer for it.

sytse 14y ago
BitNami just released an installer. We hope they upgrade it to 5.0 soon http://blog.bitnami.com/2013/03/gitlab-now-part-of-bitnami.html http://blog.bitnami.com/2013/03/gitlab-now-part-of-bitnami.h...

ergo14 14y ago

There is also http://rhodecode.org/ http://rhodecode.org/ which i highly recommend

moneypenny 14y ago

HURRAH! Gitlab is an excellent product but Gitolite and Resque were making the baby Jesus cry, ran off with your girlfriend and kicked a kid over on his bicycle. V5: Thanks very much, team Gitlab.

_JamesA_ 14y ago

This is great news as Gitolite was the one thing that prevented me from giving Gitlab a try. What are the minimum requirements for a light Gitlab installation? I can't find any recommendations on the site. The thought of deploying Gitlab on a Linode 512 for $20 a month with virtually unlimited private repositories is very exciting.

sytse 14y ago
We don't have minimum requirements. We run GitLab.com with 3000+ users on a moderate (c1.medium, 1.7 GiB) instance. I think you will do fine with GitLab 5.0 and the 512 Linode. Might have to tune the default parameters a bit to have less processes running.
- randx 14y ago
  In order to run GitLab w/o any tweaks you need 1GB Linode. You can start it on 512 but you need to setup unicorn to use only 1 worker and you need at least 200MB of swap
  - nonpme 14y ago
    Is 1GB really requred for personal use? I thought about buying 256/512 VPS exclusively for GitLab, don't you think it will be enough for personal projects? Maybe someone who has the knowledge can write tutorial about configuring GL to run on average VPS?
    - sytse 14y ago
      A post about tuning GitLab for low memory consumption would be very useful indeed.
      - nonpme 14y ago
        Maybe someone will write one someday ;). And, as I have the chance, I want to thank you and whole GitLab team for a really great work! I'm using GL localy and I'm very pleased with it.

rektide 14y ago

Just yesterday our workplace gained an interest in setting up Gitlab- can we still use our existing Gitolite install, or do we now have to migrate to Gitlab-shell? We've been extremely happy with gitolite, and I do not see us moving off of that software.

pfg 14y ago
I don't think it's possible to use Gitolite with GitLab >= 5
- jameswritescode 14y ago
  You're correct. gitlab-shell is required in 5.
  - rektide 14y ago
    Welp, there goes an obvious good thing we had high hopes would help enrich our infrastructure! Monday is going to be a very depressing day in the office for everyone: we're going to have to go to cgit or some such, and there'll probably be screaming and crying and whaling and self flagellation over that one. Ya'll should provide an easy to use configuration for using gitlab as a RO mirror of any arbitrary git repository. Hope you have a lot of great new things in the pipe that gitlab-shell is providing. If configuration was the problem, why not try and scrape gitolite's configuration directly and run gitlab from that? There's certainly another acceptable path- the one you took, creating your own repo server- but I have a hard time qualifying this- as this press release does- as a feature: it's a migration, a lateral jump: there's nothing new that happens, nothing better, it's just a different configuration routine to do what Gitlab and Gitosis. I wont be suckered by such suavity, but there's a lot of people who would be more enticed by "new super configurable way better than gitolite repo server" as a sales pitch that probably were happy enough running Gitlabs at it used to run that don't really see this as a feature, as they were already on top of it. When releasing features, put the featureful ones foremost.
    - sytse 14y ago

jbrooksuk 14y ago

Annoyingly there don't seem to be instructions or migrating from 4.2 to 5.0 when using MySQL and Apache. https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/wiki/From-4.2-to-5.0 https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/wiki/From-4.2-to-5.0

jameswritescode 14y ago
What parts are you getting snagged at?

aeontech 14y ago

Any news on supporting a single gitlab instance fronting several load-balanced git servers as backend? Or do both git repositories and gitlab still have to live on same machine?

sytse 14y ago
No news on this, the repo's need to be on a single volume (can be NFS drive or AWS EBS drive). I'm curious to know why you want this. We are looking into sharded file servers for GitLab.com Cloud but that seems a bit different from what you are proposing. If you don't feel comfortable commenting please email support@gitlab.com

m4tthumphrey 14y ago

I have been using Gitlab since version 3 and have found it a joy to work with and I too look forward to the 22nd every month. We use it in our internal network along with Jenkins for CI and a custom built deployment application. It all works very well with 15 developers and QA personnel. The new gitlab-shell hasn't made any difference whatsoever over gitolite and the update went as smoothly as possible. gitlabhq also offer Vagrant/Chef VM recipes to quickly get set up. I encourage anyone considering a change to their VCS/deployment set up to give it a try!

sytse 14y ago
Thank you for the kind comment m4tthumphrey! You probably are aware of GitLab CI that is a simpler alternative for Jenkins but I wanted to mention it just to make sure.

josephlord 14y ago

Congratulations, the project looks good. I will keep it in mind. I didn't install sometime ago partially because I was already running a Gitolite instance and wasn't sure it would play nice. Great to see Postgres support, can I ask why MySql is the recommended DB? The install instructions are still quite long but it is really good to see them done properly with a separate non-root user. The suggested Ruby version isn't the latest (even on the 1.9.3 branch) although I'm not sure that matters.

sytse 14y ago
About MySql, it is the db that most existing installations use and it is well tested. Also we had problems with deadlocks on Postgres during integration tests on Travis CI. I must admit that I think Postgres has the momentum and look forward to recommending it in the future. Good point about the ruby version, I made a pull request https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/pull/3305 https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/pull/3305
- sytse 14y ago
  The pull request was merged into master

xipho 14y ago

The installation guide link on the homepage that takes you to Git is borked at present?!

sytse 14y ago
Good point, we're looking into it. For now you can use https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/blob/5-0-stable/doc/install/installation.md https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/blob/5-0-stable/doc/ins...
- sytse 14y ago
  And it is fixed now.
randx 14y ago
fixed that with correct link
- xipho 14y ago
  Great, thanks. Time to install, so insanely timely for our needs it's scary.

__david__ 14y ago

So I've been poking around the upgrade instructions for moving to gitlab-shell [1] and I notice you ask the user to do this: sudo chsh -s /bin/bash git I don't see it changing to anything else later in the instructions. Isn't that a huge security downgrade from using gitolite? Am I missing something? [1] https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/wiki/From-4.2-to-5.0 https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/wiki/From-4.2-to-5.0

Hello71 14y ago
If GitLab security were to be perfect, then this change would not affect security in any which way. However, if the .ssh/authorized_keys file were to be written erroneously, it is possible that this change may increase the likelihood of receiving a shell with the privileges of the git user and thus being able to affect repositories. However, it should not be possible on a system otherwise secured for such a user to obtain access to the rest of they system.
- __david__ 14y ago
  > If GitLab security were to be perfect, then this change would not affect security in any which way. Yes, it does: right now users can use ssh to push and pull repos on my machine using gitolite but they do not have shell access to the computer. "ssh git@gitlab.example.com" just prints a short message and exits. With this change they can all just ssh into the computer and have a bash prompt. Trying to make that secure requires a whole different level of paranoia than just not letting people in in the first place. It also means that every gitlab user has access to every repo that's hosted and the permissions in the web interface are just for show. If this is really the case and the attitude of the devs then I don't think I will be updating any time soon... However, I still feel I must be missing something because the gitlab guys host private repos at gitlab.com and so they must have worked these security things out, right? I can't create an account at gitlab.com and just ssh into their server. At least, I really hope I can't.
  - Hello71 14y ago
    Question: What happens when you type `ssh git@github.com /bin/bash`? That command doesn't use the shell set in /etc/passwd at all, and you authenticate successfully, so it must give you a shell, right? No.

buster 14y ago

Last time i was installing gitlab after having the nightmare to install and maintain a gitorious installation and was really depressed that it felt like the same nightmare. Pages of pages of copy&paste instructions, followed by half a dozen issues that needed post-install fixing... no, never again.. I ended up installing gitblit and was amazed by the quick installation and features. Unpack&run! I can recommend gitblit to everyone who needs a quick&easy to install Git web frontend.. But gitlab definitely looks nicer, probably can do even more.. it has pull requests which are (yet) missing in gitblit.

mbreese 14y ago
I had the same issue a month or so ago. I needed to install a local Git repository and because I'd be working with people who had never used Git before, I wanted to have some kind of GUI for them. I looked at GitLab, Gitolite + gitweb, and Gitosis. GitLab's installation was the worst of the three. It was horrible, and seemed like it would have been impossible to maintain/upgrade. I really hope that the entire experience has improved. I ended up using Gitosis, and while I don't quite like the workflow, the installation was pretty easy (there was a bash script to run that installed and configured everything). I'm going to evaluate the new version of GitLab, but if the installation process isn't better, I'll just stick with Gitosis.
- oso96_2000 14y ago
  I'm nowhere near a ruby developer, so i don't understand how most of the things works, but had cero trouble installing gitlab. Even when it throws some strange (for me) errors on some gems, it was just a matter of googling to solve the problem.
  - buster 14y ago
    Some years back i was able to tolerate when a webapp needed serious fiddling in a) apache configs, b) php configs and c) manual mysql database setup. Nowaday i expect something to run and have as few steps to install as possible. It wasn't even so much the many steps in between but the stuff that just didn't work as given in the installation guide. Turned out that some answers were in the gitlab Troubleshooting Guide. And then some stuff just didn't work, because at that point resque was removed (if i remember correctly, i don't even know what resque is and i don't really care, tbh). Now, after this took me 2 hours to get it running, half a day was spent with a) log in, b) find something not working, c) google, d) log into server and fix, e) repeat. I'm no ruby guy, too, but i would've thought this goes much smoother nowadays. I was using Gitlab for 1 or 2 weeks back then, but when the password reset didn't work it really made me think if i want to go through all that again on the next major update. So i turned to gitblit (which i rejected before because it can't do pull requests). Edit: Don't get me wrong, i liked the Gitlab interface, it's very polished and nice, and what was working was working fine. Still i wouldn't want to maintain it. Maybe it's all better now with 5.0 :)

xxiao 14y ago

I'm waiting for a C/C++ version, to run it on, say, 512MB memory efficiently. ruby, java, python, php are just too fat.