On Thursday, March 5, 2015, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > But, during my last 2-3 year absence, has the GitLab[1] option been > > discussed and/or tried? GitLab is open sourced, can run on our infra and > > has many of the essential features of Github. > > But perhaps people are satisfied enough with the Github mirroring that is > > already in place, but with GitLab in house, we could (in theory) add > > features around licensing (like ICLA style assurance, similar to Jira), > and > > non-committers could(!) be allowed a direct route to the horse's mouth... > > Here's the way I look at it: the power of github.com comes not so much > from the > web UI or even API, but from a network effect. It is where developers > congregate. > Thus we'd have to have mirrors of our stuff there anyway to enable PR > workflow > for projects that care about it. And as long as THAT is in place, the > need for something > like GL is reduced, IMHO. I believe the mirrors are enough for PR workflow, and I personally like the clear borderline. The mirror is read only but you can still submit patches.... become a committer and get access to the "real thing". Building a GITASF extra to what we already have would just add complexity without giving real advantages. That said a lot of projects have their own vm(s) and other can normally get one if requested, so nothing stops a project from providing gitlabs. rgds jan i > > Thanks, > Roman. > -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
