[HN Gopher] Gitlab New Logo: DevOps Is at the Center of Gitlab
___________________________________________________________________
Gitlab New Logo: DevOps Is at the Center of Gitlab
Author : 0xedb
Score : 102 points
Date : 2022-04-27 14:22 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (about.gitlab.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (about.gitlab.com)
| dom96 wrote:
| First time I'm hearing the "DevOps infinity logo", it seems that
| everything uses a variation of this: Meta, VS Code...
| ModernMech wrote:
| Infinity is the new hexagon.
| fallat wrote:
| It's shitty brand design is what it is.
| prepend wrote:
| As much as I love the mustache fox, I struggle with GitLab being
| at the center of devops. I think source is more powerful to non-
| devs and hitching everything to devops might present some
| challenges.
|
| I work with lots of scientists and they don't care about devops
| much now and may never need to. But they love GitHub because they
| collaborate on scripts, manuscripts, demos, small data files,
| etc. They pay $4/month or whatever and don't care about devops.
| There's lots of people like this.
|
| I think there's a smaller amount of proper software devs making
| software that require devops and will pay for devops.
|
| If GitLab is really about devops, then they should be repo
| agnostic and work with lots of repos. But their core is still
| source management that they do really well. So their marketing is
| out of sync with their identity.
| acoyfellow wrote:
| Subtle change. I enjoy the concept and execution.
| kretaceous wrote:
| I love it.
|
| - I like little quirks in logos like the infinity here.
|
| - It's much more minimal. The old logo had too many unnecessary
| lines in my opinion.
|
| - I quickly associate the canine appearance and the color orange
| as a fox so I'm not sure why people are not identifying as one.
|
| - The subtle borders are _chef 's kiss_.
| bitwize wrote:
| This is a Borland -> Inprise tier shift in marketing.
| dijit wrote:
| Before I clicked I already knew it would incorporate the
| horizontal lemniscate... that seems to have become synonymous
| with devops.
|
| I'm extremely tired of that symbol at this point, I mean there's
| 4 of those images when I google for "devops" and nothing else:
| https://i.imgur.com/pr9d8KH.png
| Kiro wrote:
| If the horizontal lemniscate is synonymous with DevOps that's
| exactly what I would expect when searching for "devops". Do you
| think it's a bad representation of what DevOps is? Otherwise I
| don't understand what you're tired of.
| dijit wrote:
| I think that you can apply the lemniscate to basically
| anything.
|
| Feels lazy to keep reciting it as if it's novel or unique.
| i_like_waiting wrote:
| >DevOps Is at the Center of Gitlab
|
| Yeah, just had a call with them and they confirmed that for only
| VCS its not feasible to use their platform.
|
| What are people migrating to? I am looking at bitbucket again I
| guess.
| lbotos wrote:
| I work at GitLab, but curious what your use case is for _just
| VCS_? I assume your company has other solutions for the
| software lifecycle that you are happy with?
|
| Depending on the size of your org, If it's small GitLab CE is
| free and can readily handle VCS no problem, you won't have a
| support contract though.
| i_like_waiting wrote:
| I am in charge of reporting, business intelligence and DE. We
| use VCS to have all our SQL transformations stored there.
|
| Like that all the business users interested can see whats
| happening in background and we have things version
| controlled.
|
| For rest of the features we don't have use case and our
| "proper IT" is using github instead, but there you have to
| pay per seat in org. as I heard
| lbotos wrote:
| If the business users never need to write, just read, then
| you could set the projects to public (if your instance is
| in a private network) and then people can have vis, and you
| don't need seats for those who aren't _writing_. I think
| both products support this as an option.
| geepdb wrote:
| We ran into the same issue using dbt. Unfortunately it is
| just not cost-effective to pay for full GitLab licenses
| for BI users that occasionally tweak SQL queries and
| don't leverage any other GitLab features.
| i_like_waiting wrote:
| explaining it now, for business users we would achieve the
| same if they had access to sharepoint folder with the code
| + syntax highlighting.
|
| But I also believe its beneficial to educate the user about
| VCS as side objective.
| lps41 wrote:
| Gitolite is open source and really easy to self host if you
| only need VCS.
| woojoo666 wrote:
| I've been seeing codeberg.org more and more recently
| DoctorDabadedoo wrote:
| I would probably look back at github (or gitea if self-hosted
| and you're looking for simplicity), bitbucket is a pile of
| features that _almost_ work, but you 're constantly reminded
| that you've seem better.
|
| Commit control after PR decline/merge is one of them for me.
| pyrophane wrote:
| What do you mean? Do they just not offer a plan that is cost
| effective for a source control only use case? I currently use
| their source control and CI features, and that's it. No issues.
| i_like_waiting wrote:
| There is free tier that will have limit of 5 users in June.
|
| The Free tier of GitLab SaaS will have a limit of 5 users per
| namespace beginning June 22, 2022
|
| https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2022/03/24/efficient-free-
| tier...
| dnsmichi wrote:
| Self-managed GitLab won't have this user limit. You can run
| GitLab EE without a license (which is the Free tier then),
| or GitLab CE (only open source components), on a cloud VM
| via Omnibus package installation or in Docker containers,
| in a Kubernetes cluster, or on a Raspberry Pi.
|
| https://about.gitlab.com/install/
| trash_human wrote:
| Depending on if your arch is supported, pipelines on bitbucket
| is pretty cool.
| yewenjie wrote:
| I have been following OneDev and seems like it is going to be a
| good contender.
|
| https://github.com/theonedev/onedev
| SebastianKra wrote:
| Bibucket's code review tools are really bad.
|
| As usual for Atlassian products, every click takes 1-2 seconds.
|
| Finding comments requires manually scrolling. There is a filter
| function, but it takes some time to load. And even then,
| there's no way to sort comments chronologically. As a result,
| we would be constantly missing responses if it wasn't for the
| email notifications.
|
| If a correction is made through force-push, you'll have no idea
| what was changed compared to the replaced commit.
|
| The phone interface is unusable. On iPad, scrolling
| unintentionally adds comments.
|
| There is a VSCode Plugin which is slightly better, but even
| there we frequently miss comments or changes.
| sercand wrote:
| This is why we left Gitlab.
|
| DevOps become center part of Gitlab which we don't use and need
| any of those feature. We all need a code storage, code review,
| issue tracking and the CI/CD. We would pay advance features of
| those (epics, multiple assignee, etc) but we have to pay super
| expensive top tier which includes unnecessary DevOps stuff. We
| left and happy so far.
|
| We are using Kubernetes and custom DevOps tools but don't want to
| handle things the way that Gitlab does.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| What's the distinction between DevOps and CI/CD? I thought
| CI/CD _is_ DevOps.
| [deleted]
| abdusco wrote:
| CI/CD is part of Devops. It also includes monitoring systems,
| keeping them up, maintenance, upgrades necessary to keep the
| software working.
| itslennysfault wrote:
| DevOps is a methodology.
| andrewstuart2 wrote:
| I think you're mistaken. DevOps is a very specific team
| allowed to touch the Jenkins box, and is the old branding
| for what is now SRE which are both just rebranded names for
| Systems Administration, but with Cloud certifications
| instead of Cisco and Dell.
|
| I kid. But this is just as much the meme I've encountered
| as Agile. Some successful company releases a book about
| something they do that's fundamentally different, and
| almost instantly enterprises across the globe have a
| department for that thing with that name. Progress.
| c17r wrote:
| SRE jokingly stands for "SysAdmin, Really Expensive"
| kodah wrote:
| _Real SREs_ are great. Who wouldn 't want a Systems
| Engineer that codes and can interrogate kernel issues or
| a Software Engineer capable of writing their own compiler
| running your operations?
|
| Most companies, even if they hire these people, don't
| know how to use or listen to them though. What usually
| happens is they get lumped in with a bunch of Application
| Operations folks and it sours the idea entirely.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Well, I was trying to clarify this statement from OP:
|
| > DevOps become center part of Gitlab which we don't use
| and need any of those feature. We all need a code storage,
| code review, issue tracking and the CI/CD.
|
| It reads to me like this: "We don't use DevOps features in
| Gitlab, but we use CI/CD pipelines in Gitlab". So it is
| contradicting. As they responded, CI/CD is a subset of
| DevOps methodology.
|
| I've used Gitlab and didn't know there were more DevOps
| tools other than their CI/CD features and runners.
|
| I am still slightly confused.
| sercand wrote:
| DevOps is whole set of tools. Gitlab includes features
| like monitoring, code scanning, Kubernetes integration,
| docker registry, cloud security and protections. And
| those are $1188 per year per person. By CI/CD I mean good
| old Jenkins that runs on a computer in the office that
| builds iOS Apps and uploads them to Apple AppStore (of
| course current generation of CI/CD is much better).
| Gitlab CI/CD and runners were there much before this
| "Gitlab is the one DevOps platform" saga.
|
| Everyone in our company including HR, marketing, design
| people were also using Gitlab for task tracking.
| Therefore we need those fancy issue tracking features for
| better management. This features are in the tier that
| $1188/year per person. For the features we don't use is
| not something that we could afford.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Ah got it, thanks. I wasn't aware that they've built all
| this stuff.
| bogomipz wrote:
| I thought the OP was maybe referring to Gitlab's
| "AutoDevOps" features which were introduced a few years
| ago. From their site:
|
| >"GitLab Auto DevOps is a collection of pre-configured
| features and integrations that work together to support
| your software delivery process."
|
| I remember upgrading a Gitlab instance at that time and
| ended up with an issue that was the result of the
| AutoDevOps feature set. It seemed that AutoDevops was
| turned on by default. My issue was easy to resolve but I
| remember thinking at the time it was rather opinionated.
|
| [1] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/topics/autodevops/
| i_like_waiting wrote:
| Where did you go instead?
| 100011_100001 wrote:
| This is happening everywhere. The current industry cycle is one
| of scope expansion, moving away from the do one thing well
| paradigm. This will lead to bloated software that do a little
| bit of everything but not very well, which will trigger the
| next industry cycle, of doing one thing well paradigm.
| andrei wrote:
| I've heard this talked about before, and I believe there's a
| phrase for it, but I don't remember. Do you happen to know?
| teknofobi wrote:
| Bundling and Unbundling
| https://stratechery.com/outline/bundling-and-unbundling
| pojzon wrote:
| Ive started working with Gitlab in last few months for new
| contract and this was exactly what hit me hard.
|
| Gitlab has too many half-baked features. Ive hit those issues
| at least a dosen times.
|
| From the top of my head:
|
| - Environment variables dont work with triggers
|
| - MS Teams integration does not support multiple channels
|
| - Masking doesnt work for all variables
|
| - Code AutoDeploy quite often just breaks for no reason..
|
| - Kubernetes integration is super poor
|
| I would prefer to have fewer fearures that actually work well
| and have good support instead of bunch of stuff you have to
| sometimes wait years for to be fixed (looking at their issue
| tracker).
| kjohnstonGTLB wrote:
| GitLab Product Leader here - we do focus on MVCs and have
| built a lot of breadth in our product, that's something we
| are proud of. I do think we do a good job of pivoting and
| removing features where appropriate. For example we started
| with a not-secure-enough mechanism for attaching Kubernetes
| clusters and shifted to the more secure GitLab Agent for
| Kubernetes[1], deprecating the certificate method. We also
| started with a "must install Prometheus and Elk on your
| cluster" Observability solution and are now (after our
| acquisition of Opstrace) working to make observability on-
| by-default[2].
|
| [1] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/clusters/agent/ [2] htt
| ps://about.gitlab.com/direction/monitor/observability/#pr..
| .
| cabalamat wrote:
| Does this mean I can ewrite a web app, put the source on GitLab
| and have GitLab run the web app (ideally with very minimal
| hassle)?
|
| If not, what does it mean? What is Gitlab letting me do now than
| (a) it didn't do before (b) Github doesn't do?
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| A year or two ago the industry decided everything had to be 'a
| platform'. This is them saying "we too will chase industry
| trends for cash. we have a platform!!! bring us your money".
| The branding/logo thing... I guess is to reinforce to potential
| customers that they do more than host code, I dunno. Nobody
| understands what DevOps means so I'm not sure why they'd lean
| into that.
| john_cogs wrote:
| GitLab team member here.
|
| You may want to check out (and sign up as a beta tester) for
| Cloud Seed, an open-source program led by GitLab Incubation
| Engineering in collaboration with Google Cloud:
| https://hello.cloudseed.app/
| cabalamat wrote:
| According to that URL:
|
| > Deploying web applications from GitLab to major cloud
| providers should be trivial.
|
| Yes, that's what I want! I find it easy to develop web apps
| in Python, but a PITA to deploy them.
| dnsmichi wrote:
| GitLab team member here.
|
| > Does this mean I can ewrite a web app, put the source on
| GitLab and have GitLab run the web app (ideally with very
| minimal hassle)?
|
| Cloud Seed aims to make this easier, deploying the web
| application with minimal effort to your preferred cloud. More
| details in https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/cloud_seed/ and
| https://hello.cloudseed.app/ - it is a joint project from
| Google Cloud and GitLab.
|
| In case you run your web app in a containerized stack, and
| prefer to deploy to Kubernetes, the integration with the Agent
| for Kubernetes has been greatly improved:
| https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/clusters/agent/
|
| If you are looking to host static web apps (e.g. Hugo, etc.),
| GitLab Pages can help. More ideas in this blog post to choose a
| static site generator (SSG):
| https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2022/04/18/comparing-static-si...
|
| > If not, what does it mean? What is Gitlab letting me do now
| than (a) it didn't do before (b) Github doesn't do?
|
| Depending on which version you are at, new releases add
| features every month on the 22nd. GitLab 14.10
| https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2022/04/22/gitlab-14-10-re...
| added the GitLab Runner Operator for Kubernetes for example.
| That's an integration after the create (SCM) and verify (CI)
| stage, ensuring that cloud native deployments deploy
| applications, and maintenance levels follow best practices.
| There are more stages in the DevOps lifecycle, such as package
| and release or protect and secure.
|
| Observability for deployed applications, and ensuring that
| performance regressions do not reach production is also a very
| hot topic imho (shameless plug: join my talk at KubeCon EU to
| chat more https://kccnceu2022.sched.com/event/yttd?iframe=no
| :))
|
| With regards what you can do now - I've written a blog post
| about my favourite hacks in GitLab a while ago, maybe there are
| some features or workflows that are useful for your
| environment:
| https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2021/10/19/top-10-gitlab-hacks...
|
| That said, GitLab 15.0 is around the corner, coming May 22.
| https://about.gitlab.com/upcoming-releases/ I'm personally most
| excited about the Podman support for GitLab runner, helping
| with containerized CI/CD infrastructure as alternative to
| Docker as executor.
|
| The GitLab direction handbook provides more insights for future
| plans: https://about.gitlab.com/direction/ Recommend diving
| into the stages and review based on your requirements, or
| potential new ideas and use cases. If you miss anything, please
| open feature proposals to collaborate:
| https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues Thanks :)
| cabalamat wrote:
| > In case you run your web app in a containerized stack, and
| prefer to deploy to Kubernetes, the integration with the
| Agent for Kubernetes has been greatly improved:
| https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/clusters/agent/
|
| I've never used Kubernetes, but have seen it described as a
| PITA to set up and use, which is why I'm not keen on it.
| nicoburns wrote:
| It means that a big part Gitlab's offering is now things like
| CI, whereas originally it was just code hosting.
| afandian wrote:
| They haven't sold them selves as 'just code hosting' for some
| time. I almost wish they did. They've negleted basic stuff
| yet their marketing sells them as an all-in-one solution. A
| thousand dollars per seat per year (no fractions!) for the
| WHOLE organization just for nested Epics? No thanks. This 2
| year old thread just keeps on giving:
|
| https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/213185
|
| I'd join many participants in advising anyone to think very
| carefully before adopting GitLab.
| harabat wrote:
| Would you be able to list some of the negative developments
| you expect from GitLab going forward? For example, I know
| they are reducing support for Free Tier on their managed
| instance (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30791162).
| Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?
|
| What would you recommend instead? Gitea?
| afandian wrote:
| I should say that I respect and admire GitLab's pursuit
| of financial sustainability and not selling themselves
| too cheap. But the resulting culture, combined with the
| actual product experience, is offputting.
|
| The issue tracking and labelling system is fine for what
| it is, but not good enough for planning projects. The
| Epics and Milestones functionality appears thrown
| together and isn't useful for much (we tried). Missing
| features such as persistent links to milestones (links
| are essentially a text string), lack of workflows ("You
| can do anything! Just ... use labels"), Milestones lack a
| change history, lack of nested Epics.
|
| We want to be able to use confidential issues every now
| and again, which mean that everyone in the org needs a
| seat license to contribute or even view. If you want
| nested Epics you have to jump from $240 /seat/year to
| $1200 /seat/year for every single seat (hence the above
| linked issue).
|
| Fundamentally they are trying to be the "everything"
| platform, and their sales material suggets that you can
| drop subscriptions to all kinds of competitors. Our
| experience was that the features weren't quite good
| enough.
|
| I don't necessarily expect things to get worse. I just
| find that the tools aren't quite good enough to justify
| the sales talk, and seeing them expand the breadth of
| feature set without improving core stuff is
| disappointing.
|
| We're staying with GitLab for code and dev team, because
| we're already there and we've built CI pipelines etc. But
| moving to Jira for issue tracking and planning, and so
| far it's much nicer.
|
| EDIT: Just noticed that they closed the issue [0] with a
| glib "opportunities to help customers derive more value
| from GitLab".
|
| [0] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/213185
| nicoburns wrote:
| > But moving to Jira for issue tracking and planning, and
| so far it's much nicer.
|
| Wow, Jira being better is really damning. FWIW, there's a
| lot of competitors to Jira these days, and most of them
| are much better. We're using Shortcut, and it's been
| excellent.
| afandian wrote:
| Yeah we went into it with eyes open. I know "everyone
| hates Jira".
|
| We did evaluate Shortcut (formerly Clubhouse) and I did
| talk to a sales engineer.
|
| We weren't able to make our issues open to the public,
| which was a serious blocker.
|
| It wasn't clear how we would differentiate between user
| stories, bug tracking, epics, planned work, etc. And how
| to handle and track support and operational issues.
|
| The response in the org (we're not all devs) has been
| almost universally positive, and very favourable compared
| to our GitLab issue-tracking experience.
| abofh wrote:
| Which is unfortunate, because outside of gitlab.com, I've
| found gitlabs CI offering to be more unpleasant than any of
| the competition in terms of "DevOps" implementation,
| scalability and automation.
| freddiecoleman wrote:
| I'm amazed that more people aren't vocal about this. When I
| was using Gitlab (last year) the pipelines seemed
| unnecessarily complicated with knowledge of the underlying
| implementation details sometimes being required to get
| anything done. Almost every week we would hit some edge
| case to be presented with a several year old thread on
| Gitlab where loads of other people have the same problem
| and it hasn't been addressed yet.
| _joel wrote:
| Not exactly gitlab but a cloud provider via
| https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/topics/autodevops/index.html - bonus
| is you get feature branch hosting if you want too. I've used it
| and it worked well, even wrote an Elixir/Pheonix custom
| buildpack (but most common frameworks supported)
| lekevicius wrote:
| Old logo was probably the cleverest rendering of a fox using very
| few lines. The new logo is a lot less smart, much more standard.
| Typography is also uninspiring: seems to be using Inter, which is
| designed to not have any character (pun not intended). Although,
| to be fair, old logo also had very basic typography.
| jaimehrubiks wrote:
| Wow you're right, old one is impressive, I like it much more,
| and to me, it even resembles more a fox than the new one. Never
| thought about how cool those few lines can represent a fox so
| well and with personality.
|
| Although I admit the concept and spirit of the new change makes
| sense.
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| If Inter doesn't have character, then which font has character?
| How does one pick a font that has character?
| lekevicius wrote:
| Any font that doesn't try to be neutral. Consider Cooper
| Black, or Larken, or even the horrible Lobster. Even with
| sans-serifs you can be more expressive, for instance Px
| Grotesk.
| postalrat wrote:
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Gitlab_l...
|
| I hope that's the old logo you are talking about. Much smarter
| than these new ones.
| john_cogs wrote:
| The GitLab logo/mascot is actually a tanuki, a Japanese racoon
| dog. It symbolizes our values as a smart animal that works in a
| group to achieve a common goal.
| robotresearcher wrote:
| Y'all are gonna get really bored of explaining that your dog-
| like silhouette in distinctively fox colors is a brown
| raccoon dog.
|
| You might as well have a bright yellow circle to represent
| the moon.
| bogomipz wrote:
| I believe the Tanuki are much more known in the symbolic
| sense as mischevious and shapeshifting though no?[1] At least
| in Japan, where they are native to. There always seems to be
| one outside of an Izakaya with a flask of sake.[2]
|
| [1] https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-tanuki-japan-s-
| tri...
|
| [2] https://www.alamy.com/ceramic-statues-of-two-bake-danuki-
| tan...
| lucideer wrote:
| If the intent of the redesign was to make this more apparent,
| it also failed in that goal. Old and new both look like a
| fox.
|
| Old(er) tanuki-like logo for comparison
| https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/gitlab-
| artwork/-/blob/9b07772f...
| xdennis wrote:
| Not quite. The new one also looks like an evil owl. The old
| one didn't have a beak.
| andyonthewings wrote:
| Wait, but the other image file is named fox.png?
| https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/gitlab-
| artwork/-/blob/9b07772f...
| fallat wrote:
| That's pretty damn funny.
| john_cogs wrote:
| The intent of the redesign is for the logo to reflect
| GitLab's place at the center of the DevOps infinity loop.
| trash_human wrote:
| Why not just do some play on an infinite loop then?
| john_cogs wrote:
| If you check out the post, you can see/read how it is a
| play on an infinity loop.
| atonse wrote:
| Ah (totally serious comment, not intending to be insulting or
| flippant): I always thought it was just a cheeky copy of
| GitHub's Octocat, because that's how GitLab started too, an
| open source implementation of GitHub.
|
| Didn't know about this animal, pretty cool.
| RL_Quine wrote:
| Your logo is a fox to everyone though, doesn't really matter
| what the intent was.
| bitwize wrote:
| No worries, the tanuki and kitsune (fox) are often
| associated together, as friends or rivals, and have similar
| folkloric powers and trickster natures. In fact in recent
| Mario games, when he acquires a tanuki leaf, Luigi
| transforms into a kitsune.
| cityzen wrote:
| Be honest, you picked it because Tanuki Mario is the best
| Mario.
| boleary-gl wrote:
| ...I mean. It doesn't hurt ;)
| bastardoperator wrote:
| Not going to lie, I just learned moments ago it wasn't a fox,
| and honestly looking at tanuki images on google, is still
| looks more like a fox then it does a tanuki. For me it's the
| colors throwing everything off.
| SippinLean wrote:
| tomtheelder wrote:
| I was never a fan of the almost like gemstone like angularity
| of the old one. For me the new one does a good job capturing
| the spirit and the silhouette while just feeling a bit...
| nicer. I don't really know how else to put it, it just feels a
| lot more pleasant to look at.
| usrusr wrote:
| It's the opposite for me: the old one was playful with that
| gem/animal in-between, whereas in the new one only the animal
| part remains. And what's left of the gem-like lines makes it
| an animal with a mean/aggressive expression on its face.
|
| It's funny how a few simple lines can create so much opinion,
| I certainly wouldn't want to imply that mine is more correct
| or something like that. I'm actually surprised myself,
| because if I was told "much like the old one, but with some
| curves replacing angularity" I certainly wouldn't have
| expected that outcome.
| [deleted]
| marsven_422 wrote:
| tosh wrote:
| I like that it feels more organic (?) and friendly but still
| recognizable because it is close enough to the previous one.
| oaiey wrote:
| Friendly ... for me the new logo has anger in it. The old one
| was without emotion.
| rkimb wrote:
| People hate change, and this one is very incremental. Without the
| press release I doubt I would've noticed.
| zokier wrote:
| So, rounded corners, huh?
| aendruk wrote:
| Old logo for comparison:
|
| https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/gitlab-artwork/-/blob/9b07772f...
|
| Bonus:
|
| https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/gitlab-artwork/-/blob/9b07772f...
| remram wrote:
| I read the article and still don't understand what the new logo
| is. Did they just round the sides? Is it the start frame of
| that animation, with the [?] symbol?
| CollinEMac wrote:
| The outside edges are softer and the interior lines are
| different. The new one has less lines overall and has more of
| the deep red-orange color.
| pyrophane wrote:
| Anyone have experience with gitlab's Auto-DevOps stuff? Haven't
| really had an opportunity to use it (I do use their CI product)
| but am curious how people who've tried it find it.
| Dayshine wrote:
| I just don't understand what it is even supposed to be. We have
| what should be the simplest pipeline ever with dotnet. It could
| be three lines, dotnet test, dotnet publish, then create the
| docker image.
|
| But it doesn't seem to support dotnet.
|
| Oh, so maybe it can automatically rebuild our docker images?
| No, that's not what they mean by auto either.
|
| How about tests? No, they only support JUnit format with a
| terrible ui. And no history.
|
| Coverage or code quality? No, not really.
|
| Github on the other hand has one click pipeline actions.
| laughingbovine wrote:
| It's scary having the CI/CD magically figure out what to do for
| you purely based on the files in your repo. I bet it would save
| a lot of time if you were actually able to use it for
| everything in your company. I'd rather write my own CI, which I
| do in Gitlab CI.
| [deleted]
| atonse wrote:
| Ohhhhhhhh it just dawned on me that when GitLab says "DevOps" -
| they aren't confusingly saying "terraform, etc" type DevOps
| (Developer/Operations tasks combined), which is actually what
| everyone else means.
|
| I think they mean "the operations around running a development
| shop" ... like "Developer Operations."
|
| Silly, but makes so much of their random language about DevOps
| actually make sense now.
| stayux wrote:
| Is this a new Firefox service? Hey, I can create a real corporate
| identity for you. After a serious research and thousands of
| variants. It is cheap: only 200k USD.:)
|
| Now, a question: Why established IT companies rarely understand
| the importance of the words "Identity" and "Brand
| Differentiation"?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-27 23:01 UTC)