Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-community-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-community-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C0A3610350 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:27:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 844 invoked by uid 500); 5 Mar 2015 08:27:24 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-community-dev-archive@community.apache.org Received: (qmail 574 invoked by uid 500); 5 Mar 2015 08:27:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@community.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@community.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@community.apache.org Received: (qmail 563 invoked by uid 99); 5 Mar 2015 08:27:24 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:27:24 +0000 Received: from mail-lb0-f179.google.com (mail-lb0-f179.google.com [209.85.217.179]) by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id 9ADB11A01E0 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:27:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lbiz12 with SMTP id z12so21812340lbi.12 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 00:27:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.120.134 with SMTP id lc6mr6726811lab.72.1425544042331; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 00:27:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.124.105 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 00:27:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:27:22 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: GitLab? From: jan i To: "dev@community.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e012281a04145080510865673 --089e012281a04145080510865673 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thursday, March 5, 2015, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Niclas Hedhman > wrote: > > 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... > > Here's the way I look at it: the power of github.com comes not so much > from the > web UI or even API, but from a network effect. It is where developers > congregate. > Thus we'd have to have mirrors of our stuff there anyway to enable PR > workflow > for projects that care about it. And as long as THAT is in place, the > need for something > like GL is reduced, IMHO. I believe the mirrors are enough for PR workflow, and I personally like the clear borderline. The mirror is read only but you can still submit patches.... become a committer and get access to the "real thing". Building a GITASF extra to what we already have would just add complexity without giving real advantages. That said a lot of projects have their own vm(s) and other can normally get one if requested, so nothing stops a project from providing gitlabs. rgds jan i > > Thanks, > Roman. > -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings. --089e012281a04145080510865673--