[HN Gopher] GitLab 15.5
___________________________________________________________________
GitLab 15.5
Author : jbk
Score : 58 points
Date : 2022-10-22 17:00 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (about.gitlab.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (about.gitlab.com)
| ttoinou wrote:
| Anyone knows when the limit of 5 free users on Gitlab.com (SaaS)
| will be implemented / effective ?
| https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2022/03/24/efficient-free-tier...
|
| It was supposed to be out on the 19th but it's the 22th and I
| still don't see any difference
| john_cogs wrote:
| GitLab team member here.
|
| We intend to roll out the application of these limits gradually
| and impacted users will be notified in-app at least 60 days
| prior to the user limits being applied.
|
| If you have not yet received a notification, you have at least
| 60 days until you will see any impact related to this change.
| ttoinou wrote:
| Thanks John ! Where will the notification be sent exactly ?
| By emails ? As a todo https://gitlab.com/dashboard/todos ?
| john_cogs wrote:
| I believe it will be done via a banner in the app but I'm
| looking to confirm this.
|
| I will follow up if/when I can provide more specificity but
| it might be Monday before I have any more information.
|
| Edit: the notifications will appear as global alerts
| directly under the Nav for all group owners.
| lolinder wrote:
| Since you're here commenting: the fact that you guys
| eliminated the $5 per user per month tier before making this
| change meant my company has started switching to GitHub. The
| combination of the two changes makes it feel like you really
| weren't interested in converting free tier users to paying
| customers so much as in shedding freeloaders, which is
| unfortunate.
|
| We on the dev team would rather stick with GitLab, but
| "Microsoft is icky so we need to pay four times as much for
| the same product" isn't very persuasive to the people holding
| the purse.
| ttoinou wrote:
| Maybe we are simply not meant to be their customers ? No
| need to suppose they wanted our money in the first place
| Ecstatify wrote:
| Gitlab is the Firefox of browsers.
| npigrounet wrote:
| Gitlab is totally buggy and way too expensive.
| wycy wrote:
| What are people using these days for self-hosted version control
| in a corporate setting, Gitlab/GitHub/gitea? I'm currently
| testing out Gitlab for deployment at work but finding it
| frequently goes oddly unresponsive. Is gitea appropriate in a
| corporate setting or is it more for hobbyists?
| suprjami wrote:
| GitLab internal instance and GitLab hosted.
|
| I like it, though we probably could do permission automation
| better on the internal instance. The team who run the hosted
| stuff have this perfect.
| ghosty141 wrote:
| Depends on your needs. Do you only need a remote repo and
| issues + pull requests? Gitea all the way. Do you also do
| project management (sprints, milestones etc) and want CI/CD and
| integration with things like k8s etc? Gitlab (Premium)
| vanous wrote:
| Gitea for code, docs as code with Woodpecker for CI for test
| tasks and build/deploy tasks. Also integrated with Weblate for
| translation.
|
| Kanboard for more complex task management with a hook server
| for custom automations.
| smithcoin wrote:
| I was a happy gitlab user for a long time. As ops manager I led
| the migration from GitHub to gitlab 3 years ago. At the time it
| seemed like a great decision. Now, as tech director I am looking
| to switch us back. It is very clear in my interactions with
| gitlab they do not care about small companies. Their pricing
| structure is bonkers and has completely catered out the middle.
| IMHO the jumping the shark moment was the IPO.
|
| I want gitlab to succeed. I've spent several sessions with
| various teams there sharing my feedback and it goes nowhere. I am
| not arrogant enough that I expect it to be implemented; there are
| no follow ups even for clarity or to say "thanks but no thanks".
|
| How is their code search so broken at this point? What features
| are they cranking out that are more important than making the
| site usable? Right now it looks like they are solely focused on
| implementing pricing increases, storage limits and user
| restrictions. I have had a representative say to me why don't you
| upgrade to premium- as if a $99/seat/user/month is palatable to
| any company or a realistic solution.
|
| I get that companies need to make money, but their approach is
| tone deaf. They had an issue where pricing was discussed and it
| ended up changing nothing [0].
|
| I agree with the sentiment in this thread. It seems there are two
| common themes. 1- the inconsistencies in the UI are frustrating
| many people. 2- The pricing that probably made them an attractive
| alternative is no longer there.
|
| I look forward to the incoming PR damage control in this thread
| per company policy [1], that again will lead to no changes.
|
| [0] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/213185
|
| [1] https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/community-
| relati...
| [deleted]
| wdb wrote:
| Yeah, if you want anything you need to build it yourself and
| raise merge requests and hope they merge it to make it into
| Gitlab.com.
|
| Even their Gitlab.com runners are still not on par with the
| Github. You pay $99/month/user and can't even get the same base
| runner spec as Github instead of you need to pay double the CI
| minutes to get it. Pretty mad
| dijit wrote:
| To be fair here it's a bit apples to oranges.
|
| Gitlab is optimised more towards running your own runners,
| it's natively supported and extremely easy to set them up.
|
| GitHub on the other hand provides you CI which has the
| possibility to self-host, but they're sort of awkward to use
| due to the fact they force you to use odd tags and you don't
| get all the features.
| wdb wrote:
| Doesn't mean they could have the same level of runner spec
| as Github.
|
| Especially, when you pay a lot of money for Gitlab. Github
| std spec is ~7gb + 2vcpu while on Gitlab you need to pay
| double minutes to get that. They could at least match that
| for their paid plans.
|
| Personally, I think, Gitlab keeps adding a lot of features
| but the core CI related functionality seem to get less
| attention these days.
| jeff_carr wrote:
| Wow, lots of gitlab hate here but at thee same time lots of
| love. Everyone loves gitlab. I think the core issue is when
| things become so complicated, you can run your own git server.
| As I mentioned in another comment, projects like gitea are
| designed for complicated problems like this. If you are as
| savvy as you seem to be, spin up a VM and run gitea. A normal
| VM at digital ocean at $1k a month could handle any conceivable
| load. Don't 3rd party something you can do yourself for free.
| jpace121 wrote:
| Has anyone ran gitea at a company?
|
| I'm pro open source and run gitea at home, but looking at
| their issue list and pull requests it doesn't really come off
| as a mature open source project that I'd want to run my
| company from, when down time at the wrong time can get really
| expensive.
| lolinder wrote:
| The elimination of the basic tier is the thing that really
| threw me off.
|
| I want GitLab to succeed because I want there to be a viable
| competitor to GitHub. But they've leaned so hard into this
| "everything in one" shtick that it's now impossible to just pay
| for them as a GitHub competitor. Their new price point only
| makes sense if you're also using their issue tracker and doing
| crazy things with CI that can't be done with GitHub actions.
|
| Maybe there's a market that's interested in this all-in-one
| stuff, but I suspect most companies already have an issue
| tracker and are not going to invest in switching, because that
| causes headaches for years. As for CI, there's definitely a
| "hardcore CI" market for whom GitHub actions is insufficient,
| but they already have a solid open source option in Jenkins. I
| worry that GitLab's lost focus on the git-with-simple-
| automations market will cement GitHub's dominance for the
| foreseeable future.
| lol768 wrote:
| In my experience: The UX, performance (objectively: not just in
| terms of CI speed, which is poor, but Largest Contentful Paint
| times for most user-facing pages on gitlab.com as well as the
| average API response time figures for e.g. listing issues are
| also poor), stability and "community" (I'm thinking of third-
| party apps, integrations and marketplace for reusable CI
| components) is strictly worse than GitHub.
|
| Basic accessibility features for colour blind users lagged
| behind GitHub for years, making it difficult for me to even
| review diffs and work out what had been removed/added. In the
| end, I think the customisation feature only got shipped because
| an external company opened a merge request - and parts of it
| still fail WCAG AA today.
|
| There's no longer a gap when it comes to GitHub and GitLab in
| terms of CI support, and I really don't think some of the e.g.
| Kubernetes integration functionality justifies picking it as
| the canonical location for an organisation's code.
|
| Recently they've had to start to cut back on storage limits
| (and had to 180 on deleting repositories to try and free up
| space), which casts doubt in my mind on their financial
| stability.
|
| Really though, I'm just fed up of having to put up with using
| it day-to-day, because clients I work with decided it would be
| great to pick it X years ago when GitHub wasn't as feature-
| rich. I now look at companies who cheap out and run self-hosted
| GitLab/GitLab.com with some suspicion, and question why they're
| not using the de facto standard tool for the job. I look at it
| the same as if I found a Java shop that didn't use JetBrains'
| products for development, it's a red flag.
| argella wrote:
| My company is forcing my team (data science) to shut down our
| gitlab server and move to azure devops (ran by software
| engineering). They've configured ADO as a pile of shit. I want to
| quit.
| neilv wrote:
| FWIW, the Software Engineering team might not actually like
| Azure Dev Ops. Misery loves company.
|
| Teams can get stuck using platforms they hate (e.g., MS Azure
| Dev Ops, MS Teams, MS Exchange and Outlook, etc.), but not
| wanting to take the interruption and effort hit to switch to
| something else.
|
| Or it might not be their choice. Organizations can also get
| stuck because, say, some non-techies made the purchasing
| decisions, staffed support people with
| familiarity/certifications with those, committed to contracts,
| etc. Those people are politically invested in that being
| considered a success.
|
| Even someone who isn't politically invested would be in the
| position of calling out bad choices, which is awkward and
| worse. They'll also be putting their neck out, if try to
| propose changes (which would be corrective costs no one wants,
| and also might fail for reasons other than their merits).
|
| (I'm talking bigger-company politics, because that's who tends
| to buy into MS enterprise sales. But if you're actually a tech
| software startup that's inexplicably using things like Azure
| Dev Ops, find out why, and get that person the compassionate
| healing help they need, while shifting the startup onto a more
| sensible and respectable path.)
| mirekrusin wrote:
| Wasn't azure devops deprecated yet after github aquisition?
|
| ps. I'd probably quit as well
| zhfliz wrote:
| haven't seen an official announcement of this, only various
| people assuming in various places on the internet.
|
| if you have any official statement to support that i'd be
| happy to see that.
| hu3 wrote:
| One of my clients use Azure DevOps and I hear nothibng but
| praise. MS Teams tho, not so much.
|
| Also I think AzureDevops just got a revamped "Sprint page
| 2.0" from what I heard so they are releasing new features.
| input_sh wrote:
| Nope, it and TFVC (an alternative versioning system to Git)
| are unfortunately still alive. But at least Azure DevOps
| supports Git, which makes it slightly less horrible.
|
| And it doesn't look like it's going anywhere, with Azure
| DevOps Server 2022 RC1 being released in August
| (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-
| us/azure/devops/server/releas...).
|
| Did I mention how much Microsoft sucks at naming things?
| foepys wrote:
| TFVC is more like Subversion but has a lot more features.
| It has next to nothing in common with git except that you
| can use it to version control files. Although I would agree
| that git's workflow is better for almost all use cases.
|
| Azure DevOps has a lot more features than GitHub for
| micromanagement which means that middle management loves
| it. You can design elaborate workflows on boards and link
| almost everything together. It also supports reporting,
| connects directly to the Azure AD, and supports complex
| permission management with ACL for nearly every feature you
| can imagine.
|
| It also supports free stakeholder accounts.
| misnome wrote:
| Our internal gitlab spends an hour every night intermittently
| responding and at least 20 minutes literally unresponsive because
| of running the "backup" and "upgrade" steps.
|
| I'm told that we're talking to the Gitlab premium people and it's
| currently unavoidable. We don't have a large instance.
| "Maintenance mode" makes the whole process slower, so we don't
| turn it on.
|
| And I think premium now costs the same as self-hosted GitHub?
|
| Has anyone had similar bad experiences with medium company (~500
| employees, probably 1/4-1/3 developers) enterprise self-hosting?
| lbotos wrote:
| My email is in my profile if you have an open ticket number for
| this issue that I can take a look at when I'm at my desk
| Monday.
| jeff_carr wrote:
| Have you tried gitea? It's super hard core. Also, it's written
| in golang.
|
| The only thing that will cause gitea to fail, as far as I can
| tell, is the hardware. It's basically a daemon on top of the
| linux kernel.
|
| Stand on the shoulders of giants.
|
| When you can.
| bogwog wrote:
| Gitea has had reliability issues whenever I've tried to use
| it. And by "reliability issues" I mean the thing would spit
| out an "internal server error" message if I clicked around
| too fast in the UI while it's running locally on the same PC.
|
| It is a lot faster and lighter than Gitlab, but I don't
| really care about that for something like this. Gitlab is
| fast enough, and since I run it on a dedicated server, I
| don't really care how much memory and resources it's using as
| long as it doesn't exceed the limits of the server.
|
| EDIT: to be fair though, I haven't used gitea in at least a
| year. Things might have improved in that time.
| kenniskrag wrote:
| even the gitea people are using github for development. The
| reason they mention on the migration issue is, that not all
| features needed are ready. They e.g. implemented issue
| deletation a few months ago.
|
| https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/1029
| vanous wrote:
| >even the gitea people are using github for development.
| The reason they mention on the migration issue is, that not
| all features needed are ready. They e.g. implemented issue
| deletation a few months ago.
|
| Actually,data gravity is the issue, not features.
| https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/18165 needs to be
| merged to be able to leave Github.
| kenniskrag wrote:
| They are writing an import function im this pull request.
|
| I think the code an pull requests are easy migrated
| manually. The 2k open issues would have to be cleaned up
| first. Then migrate the remaining issues via api. One
| issue could be the non existing user on the import side.
| mgbmtl wrote:
| Presumably this is only the SQL backup? (you can backup almost
| everything else using a regular backup system)
|
| 20 minutes seems really long for running an SQL backup. How big
| is the database? Is the disk/storage fast?
|
| Have you tried replicating the database and running the backup
| off the secondary server?
|
| Restarts are annoying though, and fairly slow (2-3 minutes?),
| but less than once per week?
| fuzzy2 wrote:
| Maybe using filesystem snapshots (either directly on supported
| filesystems or using LVM or the like) could remove the
| bottleneck here.
|
| Are you monitoring the system status? How's the CPU and I/O
| load when the backup is running?
| maxbond wrote:
| I'd like to move off of GitHub but I'm disappointed that I'll
| have to leave behind the discoverability and cache of GitHub. I'm
| not sure that it will be as clear if I put a GitLab on my resume,
| for instance. I imagine others have given this thought; any
| advice or experiences to share?
| suprjami wrote:
| Think of this the other way around. Do you want to work for a
| company who equates "GitHub" with coding and doesn't know what
| GitLab is? I wouldn't.
| maxbond wrote:
| I think lots of perfectly good companies have hiring people
| who might make this kind of mistake. But I'm also concerned
| it would doom an open source project, as contributors/users
| would have more trouble finding it.
| Gigachad wrote:
| What discoverability does GitHub provide anyway? I know they
| have that Explore page but I was under the impression they were
| trying to kill that. I have mostly found projects through the
| source link on whatever package manager I discovered it on.
| ktaylora wrote:
| I started on GitHub, moved to a job that used Gitlab, and then
| another that uses Bitbucket. Being platform agnostic about
| CI/CD and Git, I think, looks better than being wed to a single
| provider.
| kyriakos wrote:
| I'm hoping for a gitlab release with no new features just UI
| optimizations. It's a great product with a huge range of features
| but it feels like a kitchen sink of tools glued together. The UI
| is inconsistent, some parts dynamically update some don't. The
| settings interface is a mess. Merge requests review UI is nowhere
| as good as github. I wish some time was spent on polishing and
| ironing out these details.
| suprjami wrote:
| I honestly find MR in web interface has sucked in every
| platform I've tried.
|
| Use the `lab` commandline tool, it's good and makes managing
| MRs really easy.
| zeeZ wrote:
| Every time I have a problem or miss a feature, or it behaves in
| an unexpected way, I check if there's an issue open. Most of
| the time there is, multiple years old, sometimes with a bunch
| of missed release goals.
|
| With all the recent pricing changes and the way billing if set
| up, I can't help but feel their end goal is ticking boxes on as
| many "enterprise" shopping lists as possible by adding as many
| features as possible to provide a nice resume, but without
| actually maintaining those features.
|
| Smaller teams are becoming increasing irrelevant, and when you
| call them out on it and they say they do care, you just get
| pointed at a sales representative whom you never hear from
| again.
| Gigachad wrote:
| I'm pretty happy with the general GL experience but some of the
| features are just useless. I tried out the Sentry integration
| and found it to just be a worse version of the index page on
| Sentry, not really any point connecting it to GL. And then
| other things like deleting old images in the docker registery
| seems to be just broken to the point I couldn't work out how to
| delete them. And then the usage quotas were being brought in
| while I still couldn't clean out these hundreds of old
| containers.
| stinos wrote:
| _Merge requests review UI is nowhere as good as github_
|
| This is my main issue with it. I don't really care about the
| settings UI: mostly using the API for that because I have a
| couple of projects which all need the same settings, and
| otherwise it's not visited often. Code review on the other hand
| is super common, and its UI in combination with that UI also
| not being very fast is quite annoying.
| mdaniel wrote:
| > Email notification when two-factor OTP attempt is wrong
|
| I love that idea and hope I never see one of those emails
|
| Separately, that's awesome about them upstreaming fixes to
| kubernetes, but latest comment on the issue that the PR has
| tagged as closing totally captures my experience with all those
| stalebots:
|
| > @k8s-ci-robot added lifecycle/rotten (Denotes an issue or PR
| that has aged beyond stale and will be auto-closed.) labels 8
| days ago
| hobo_mark wrote:
| > Email notification when two-factor OTP attempt is wrong
|
| Sounds like they read HN:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32911299
| sylware wrote:
| Hope it has better noscript/basic (x)html support, at least for
| core functions (like bugzilla has).
| mdaniel wrote:
| Did you file an issue about that experience? I would not expect
| any such thing to be prioritized but it for sure won't be
| prioritized if there's no issue for it
| sylware wrote:
| Yes, a long time ago I did manage to contact somebody there,
| got the finger.
|
| I don't expect less from most javascript kiddies.
| Gigachad wrote:
| It's not an "issue" its the design. GitLab is a web app and
| not a document so there is no chance they will rewrite the
| whole thing to support not running scripts.
| beardedman wrote:
| Wow, rewind 2 years and the comments for any GitLab post looked
| really different. I'm still a GitHub user/fan - but seems the GL
| folks might want to pay attention.
| jpace121 wrote:
| It's very interesting to see how different the responses are. I
| think if I was in charge at GitLab I would at minimum be trying
| to determine why.
| Gigachad wrote:
| In the last 2 years GitHub has improved massively while GitLab
| seems to have only hiked prices while not improving much on the
| reliability and general UX sides. I don't personally have any
| issues with them putting quotas on all the stuff that used to
| be unlimited because I recognize things have to remain
| sustainable, but to justify these costs, the service has to
| feel rock solid like GitHub does.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-22 23:01 UTC)