community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: GitLab?
Date Thu, 05 Mar 2015 15:35:17 GMT
Could the ASF not simply run a GitHub Enterprise server ?

Sent from my android device.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Nalley <>
Sent: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: GitLab?

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Niclas Hedhman <> 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]
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> - 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.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message