There is another opensource project that does the same but significantly easier to deploy, manage and upgrade (no dependency hell): http://gogs.io
Regards. On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:05 PM, <anto...@gmx.de> wrote: > Could the ASF not simply run a GitHub Enterprise server ? > > Sent from my android device. > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> > To: dev@community.apache.org > Sent: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:15 AM > Subject: Re: GitLab? > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: >> Opening a new thread... >> >> Git without Github is like sex without a partner, sufficient but not very >> satisfactory. Github option has been explored in the past, and due to >> various reasons, it was not possible to achieve. >> >> 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... >> >> Although the Enterprise system cost money, my guess is that GitLab would be >> happy to waive fees and give us access to EE. >> >> >> Just a thought. >> >> [1] https://about.gitlab.com/features/ >> >> -- >> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer >> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java > > > Infrastructure (at least in the short term) won't deploy Gitlab. The > reasoning is this: > 1. Most of our demand from projects is for Github, and truthfully, if > we could resolve one or two nagging problems, Infra would love to no > longer run and administer several hundred git repositories and instead > offload that work to Github. > 2. There is a lot of infrastructure built up around the existing git > infrastructure. Deploying Gitlab or Allura or anything else would > require us to figure out authorization, backups, integration with > Github, Jira, BZ, svn mirroring, etc; that's a lot of work. IF we were > going to tackle such a project it would need to be for all projects, > not just a few, and it would be significantly lower on the priority > list than a lot of the work we are currently doing. > > My current thinking (though not yet Foundation policy) is that there > is the canonical repository must be managed by Infra, and I suspect > that will be in the proposed policy that gets submitted to the board. > > --David
