community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "antoine@gmx.de" <anto...@gmx.de>
Subject Re: GitLab?
Date Thu, 05 Mar 2015 17:07:42 GMT
Looks great

Antoine Levy-Lambert

----- Reply message -----
From: "Rohit Yadav" <bhaisaab@apache.org>
To: <dev@community.apache.org>
Subject: GitLab?
Date: Thu, Mar 5, 2015 12:01 PM

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,  <antoine@gmx.de> wrote:
> Could the ASF not simply run a GitHub Enterprise server ?
>
> Sent from my android device.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Nalley <david@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 <niclas@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
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message