It's me or a lot of those points don't explain anything?
I totally get they don't want to open source it as a company but don't try to give false reason for it.
It's not because it's open source that you can't have quality, central design, or good documentation.
It's not like anyone can push code to your project once you open source it, you're still the gatekeeper that decides which PR gets accepted and which one does not.
I could understand the argument that sifting through the pull requests would take them too much time that they could spend doing something else, but at least 8/12 of these could be solved by... you know, properly maintaining an open source project.
The article leads me to the conclusion that they have no intention of letting the community drive the company, and I could totally understand that. I don't see how any of the listed reasons could prevent them from making their code source-available without indicating an open source license.
I've used the mysql FDW for a project at work, it was really helpfull. We've replaced an old "ETL" using a bunch of hard to maintain scripts to mysql_fdw and some materialized view.
It was easier for us because it helps write maintainable logic, you can easily sync multiple databases, multiple servers, without much changes.
A few things to note though:
- we had issues with 0000-00-00 dates that are valid in mysql but not in postgres. So we had to write include a convertion in plsql into the mat view.
- We stumble upon a bug in mysql_fdw, in which the selected row is skipped if the size of a column exceed a given size. This is reaaaaally hard to catch and really bad experience as you won't get any error, notice or warning.
- we had trouble with a few type casting like json and others.
got it running on osx, first it didn't worked (nothing suggested), then i've restarted it and it seems to work.
pretty basic, but it more or less match my needs.
the only thing that i miss is the file icons or app icons:
it show you multiple match but the icons are all the same, dark, so you can't quickly disambiguate them
I'm pretty happy with gitlab too,
but if i had to compare it with github i would go:
- gitlab.com is neat but often has 5XX or is often pretty slow
- doc is somewhat messy i rarely find what i'm looking for.
- UI/UX get better but still confusing.
- notifications are not clear and i often get what i don't want (my own things) and not what i want (what other did)
Nice! Good release !...
One thing that make the user experience way less friendly and make me worry about pushing as our main repo is the git push/pull speed....
Coming from GitHub or bitbucket it feels really slow. But I don't give up hope!
I can confirm this, self-hosted is incredibly fast - you'll wonder how you ever used gitlab.com or github.com for that matter. It's as fast as it is for me to push to a locally running git server to be honest.
As a side note: GitHub.com is hosted on Azure and that says a lot, at risk of sounding like a zealot - I have quite a bit experience with apps including office365 hosted on Azure and that platform has more than its share of problems internally, problem is that it's a bit black box that's run by one of the least transparent companies I've worked with, let's just say there are a lot of internal engineering problems especially around networking (DNS especially) and storage. While I'm sure gitlab could throw more resources at their instances they're probably limited by costs / going above what is offered for HN startups to try to lock them into the platform and that may not help given the aforementioned internal platform issues.
Rest assured, self hosting an instance for say 50-100 developers does not require much 'grunt' at all as long as your platform is stable and properly managed which I don't believe should be at all hard in 2016 assuming you have half decent systems engineers or use a decent hosted platform.
I'm sorry to hear you had issues with your new account. I assume it has to do with email confirmation. Please email support@ company domain to get help.
If you purchase GitLab.com Bronze Support you can email support directly for timely, personal and private answers. This costs $9.99 per user per year for next-business-day response time and is available in packs of 20 users.
I'm also in the process of moving from jenkins to gitlab... and until now, the process is pretty smooth and easy ...
gitlab-ci is easier to grasp and to work with... the only issues i got is about things like publishing build results (lints check or test results /counts ) althoug there is basic support for artifacts. it's not easily possible (at least for now) to fetch the artifacts for a given commit or branch without doing multiple api calls.
Interesting .... and the prices seems to be low,
but they run postgresql 9.4 which is a little outdated.
and there is no details about what you'll be able to do / not do (like installing extensions, or other similar things)
The VPS isn't fault tolerant or managed. I am assuming this is? I actually asked them on IRC if they could launch MySQL, PSQL aaS less than a month ago. Turn around from the RunAbove team has been super fast.
Kind of like the new look, more modern but it's only a new css...
some of the polish i'd like to see:
- @ mentions in firefox that works
- link from 1 task to another, the linked task should have a mention of the link.
- loading the task detail panel is waaaaay to slow
- You don't have enough info about your sub tasks in the main view
- desktop notifications?
- desktop client ?
It's not because it's open source that you can't have quality, central design, or good documentation.