• dinckel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    171
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I keep basically all of my shit on Gitlab, so depending on who they sell it to, that might be a goodbye. I’ve really enjoyed the platform, but if it goes into hands of either some clueless business people, data aggregator, or “AI-first” bullshit, i’m migrating to something else.

      • lysdexic@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        There would be no other incentive for companies to buy it.

        A company might want to extend it’s service offering with a build pipeline/CICD system, and buying GitLab would get them the best-in-class service.

        Microsoft bought GitHub for much of the same reasons, and GitHub didn’t went to hell after the acquisition.

    • TootSweet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m in the same boat. I migrated all my stuff to Gitlab the day it was announced that Github was being acquired by Microsoft. I hadn’t even really heard of Codeberg at the time. So I migrated to Gitlab.

      And it sounds now like there’s a high likelikhood I’ll need to move it all again.

      • dinckel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I’ve been casually taking a look at it for a bit, so it’s definitely on the radar

        Edit: Overall i’m happy, at first proper glance, but not having access to even barebones CI is kind of a pain. I can’t really deploy my own at the moment, and having to request access to their own Woodpecker instance is something that seems unlikely to be approved

        • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Codeberg is where I will be next. A nonprofit ownership created because they didn’t like the commercialization of other providers that’s getting more and more popular. Seems like they likely won’t go down this rabbit hole.

    • mark@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      You shouldn’t wait because it’s going to happen. I moved all of my projects off of Github and Gitlab, and now self-hosting my own gitea instance. It’s been great and never looked back!

      • thegreenguy@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        3 months ago

        Btw gitea has been involved in some shit, most of the Devs quit and created Forgejo. AFAIK you can seamlessly switch from gitea without needing to completely reset it.

      • Laser@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        I actually have an account on there with almost nothing, just my nix configuration, plus a repo I cloned to commit a bug fix on software I used. But it seemed like the most responsible solution as in the price is reasonable, plus I actually like the interface. Codeberg also looks good and claims to be better in some regards, but these are the only choices nowadays.

        Anyhow, I’m still waiting for Pijul to have a final 1.0 release and independent hosting solutions to appear.

    • BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Same here. Gitlab CI was a game-changer for me, too. Any thoughts on where else you’d consider going? Aside from GitHub, that is.

      • dinckel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I suspect that in the worst case scenario, i’ll be moving stuff to Codeberg and hosting my own CI to support it

    • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s funny because despite all the fearmongering about Microsoft’s Github acquisition it feels like it only improved since then, while Gitlab has done a shitton of questionable and shitty decisions, a ton of critical security issues and in general feels like (at best) they don’t know what they are doing.

      The only thing Gitlab has going for itself is that it’s self-hostable, but they still retain a large amount of control.

      • loudwhisper@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think the benefits of federation is discoverability. I can spin up my gitea or forgejo (or something else!) Instance, but when people look for code in their instances, they can still discover my public repositories, and if they want to contribute, they can fork and open PRs from their instances.

        So yeah, it means mostly you can selfhost and provide space to others, but with the same benefits that right now github offers (I.e., everything is there).

      • 56!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        No, it means people can contribute issues and pull requests to projects on other servers. Repositories would only be created on the server your account is on if I’m not mistaken. I believe it uses activitypub internally, so should work the same as Lemmy/mastodon.

  • GrappleHat@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    The chances of a deal are said to be weeks away, if not non-existent.

    What kind of non-sentence is that?

  • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    3 months ago

    I feel like sourcehut really ought to be mentioned more. It federates issue and PRs by email and has a wonderful interface while not having any ads—which is why hosting one’s own repo (and their CI and IRC but nothing else) requires $2 a month, unfortunately.

    • lysdexic@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t think it makes any sense to mention source hut because none of the features you mentioned are killer features (or relevant. Why should I care about implementation details of feature tracking?) and it completely fails to address GitLab’s main value proposition: it’s CICD system.

      Anyone can put up any ticketing system. They are a dime a dozen. Some version control systems even ship with their own. CICD is a whole different ballgame. It’s very hard to put together a CICD system that’s easy to manage and has a great developer experience. Not even GitHub managed to pull that off. GitLab is perhaps the only one who pulled this off. A yams file with a dozen or so lines is all it takes to get a pipeline that builds, tests, and delivers packages, and it’s easy to read and understand what happens. On top of that, it’s trivial to add your own task runners hosted anywhere in the world, in any way you’d like. GitLab basically solved this problem. That’s why people use it.

      • inspxtr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        I use gitlab ci mainly and dabble in github actions. Can you clarify how “Not even Github managed to pull that off”? IIRC, actions is quite featureful and it’s open-source, so I assume that can be run with self-hosted runners as well.

        • loutr@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yep, at my previous job I moved a pretty complex build system from Jenkins to github actions. It worked fine and was much simpler to maintain.

          And yes there are ways to run github actions on your own machine, but I haven’t tried it.

        • lysdexic@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Can you clarify how “Not even Github managed to pull that off”?

          GitHub actions has an atrocious user experience, to the point that even a year or so ago people where doubting it was production-ready.

          Sure, you can put together a pipeline. But I challenge anyone to try it out with GitHub actions and then just try to do the same with GitLab or even CircleCI or Travis.

          The fact that people compare GitHub Actions go Jenkins of all things is everything anyone needs to know about it’s user experience.

    • morrowind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      Using email for anything is a non-feature for me. I want nothing to do with that outdated, confusing piece of tech that has been shoved in all sorts of places it doesn’t belong

        • morrowind@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 days ago

          Since forever. It’s very slow, I’m still not sure replying is actually in the spec or email clients fake it with Re: and then force you to quote the entire history of the conversation back and forth. Also very easy to break if you don’t like the Re: or something. People are constantly replying to the wrong person or persons, sometimes even to themselves. You have weirdly named fields “cc” and “bcc” that are present all the even though I use them like 4x and 1x a year, respectively. You can’t unsend or delete emails.

          And all this is before I get into doing git or calendars over email.

          Email is in fact one of the reasons I’m not sure I want the fediverse to succeed right now, because then all the faults of activitypub will be forced on us for centuries, like they are with email.

  • aport@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    GitLab still doesn’t even support leaving comments on a commit message. Like, what? GitLab and GitHub have all these fancy shiny features but still suck at offering basic code review functionality.

    I never understood the appeal.

    • allywilson@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I mean, I get it, but that’s also not a thing of git, right? Just because GitHub does something doesn’t mean every other hosting provider needs to. If your code review process is to comment upon specific commits, maybe it’s the code review process that’s wrong?

      • aport@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        GitHub doesn’t let you comment on the commit message either. The only one I’ve seen do this properly this is Gerrit. And of course regular old mailing list reviews.

        There are so many blogs and posts about writing good commit messages, using Conventional Commits, etc, and the two most popular forges don’t even let you comment in-line on the commit message during a review.

        • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Ohhhhh you can’t comment on a specific line of a commit message. I see. I mean… yeah I guess not. That seems like a super niche feature though. How long are your commit messages? I’ve never even tried to do that. Commit messages are short enough you can pretty much just write a normal message not tied to a specific line.

          There are waaaaay bigger issues with Gitlab. Here’s one I ran into recently, you can’t search for pipelines. It’s got a search box and everything but you literally can’t search; only filter. So stupid.

          I actually just went to take a look at Gitlab issues I have commented on to see what my worst ones are. Guess what… you can’t even search for issues you have commented on!!!

          Still, overall it’s the best self-hostable option out there at the moment IMO. I guess Forgejo (truly abysmal name) may overtake it at some point.

    • morbidcactus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 months ago

      I just flipped my home git to forgejo from gitlab, gitlab just had a bunch of features I wasn’t using, forgejo was easy to setup and it has a nice interface. I’m just using it for source control right now, still probably huge overkill but eh

      • Myaa@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        How did you set it up? I’ve been wanting to setup forgejo in a docker container but wasn’t sure how easy the process is.

        • morbidcactus@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          I was originally going to to go the docker route but honestly just ended up going the binary route and leaving it using sqlite as it’s good enough for now. It’s pretty well documented and a chunk of the prereqs I already had, like the git user creation.

          Did have SSH auth issues though, probably becauae I didn’t fully cleanup after uninstalling gitlab (oops), had them in parallel for a bit to migrate the repos, gitlab had it trying to use gitlab-shell which didn’t exist anymore. Probably a better/proper solution but what worked was changing the git user’s home directory back to /home/git as gitlab had it using a gitlab config directory. I welcome anyone giving me a better/cleaner solution for this, on my to do list to do some more cleanup.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        The only “downside” about Codeberg is that (for the most part) you’re only allowed to host projects that as FOSS or projects you intend to make FOSS. (Stuff like personal notes and config files are fine too.)

    • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 months ago

      Elon has entered the chat…how many labs of this git kind can you make for him within 3 months? Can git be somehow monetized?

        • I used to host a Gitlab instance at work. It was dog slow so I started digging into it and discovered they had a serious memory leak in some of their “unicorns,” aka Ruby tasks. Instead of fixing the source of the leak they tacked on a “unicorn killer” that periodically killed tasks. The tasks were supposed to be atomic anyway, so this is technically fine (and maybe a good thing in the long run for correctness a la Netflix’s Chaos Monkey) but I found myself kind of disgusted by the solution. I dropped it and went for a much sparser Git repo web server.

          • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            lmao! Man that’s hilarious!

            “We have a memory leak that could lead to a security issue.We should do something about it.”

            “I made a process that periodically kills those tasks. No one will notice the problem now.”

            The unicorn killer will have a memory leak as well. 💀

          • barsquid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            That’s disappointing. They are pretty consistently choosing the wrong thing. I don’t think they know what they’re doing.

            Unicorn killer does sound great for testing. If they wrote tests around anything I’d be surprised, though. LOL.

            If you don’t need all the user management and whatever else it definitely doesn’t make sense to run their junk.

            • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              They do have a ton of tests actually. In their defence, if this task is doing Git things then just killing it when it goes badly is probably the best you can do. Git itself is quite buggy if you stray from the most basic setup. I’ve had it almost completely destroy my .git directory in the past when using submodules.

              On the other hand, Gitlab itself is an enormous entirely untyped Ruby monster, with extremely difficult to follow code. Not in terms of individual functions - except for the lack of types mean you can’t really know what they do, they are quite clear and well written. The issue is the control flow between parts of the system. It’s difficult to know what calls what, so I’m not surprised they occasionally have to give up.

              I had a play with Deno’s Fresh web framework recently (Typescript/TSX but mainly server rendered). IMO it’s light years ahead of other solutions.

              You get full amazing Typescript typing, including in templates (unlike Go for example), but unlike React you don’t have to deal with JavaScript tooling or complex client side state management. It’s a real breath of fresh air. (Ha that wasn’t even intentional.)

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Could be! But that doesn’t excuse a massive security failure like sending password reset emails to attacker-supplied addresses. I am pretty sure they have had other large failures.

        They are writing code with zero/negative regard for security and that makes me want to use any alternative FOSS git host.

  • ulkesh@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 months ago

    Don’t worry everyone! It’ll get bought by some investment firm or by a large company (Microsoft [to shutter it], Google, etc) and everything will be just fine.

    Right?

    sigh

  • onlinepersona@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Fuck. No other source forge supports groups or orgs with hierarchical projects 🫤 Gitea and Forgejo went hard on being github clones, so they’re off the list. Are there any other alternatives? I don’t want to have to bash together scripts to make something…

    Anti Commercial-AI license

    • dallen@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s not a dealbreaker for me but I feel your pain. Getting everything organized in Gitlab is a pleasure.

    • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I looked into it after this year’s massive price hike… There’s no meaningful alternative. We’re on the FOSS version of GitLab now (GitLab-CE), but the lack of code ownership / multiple reviewers / etc. is a real pain and poses problems with accountability.

      Honestly there are not that many features in Gitlab EE that are truly necessary for a corporate environment, so a GitLab-CE fork may be able to set itself apart by providing those. To me there are two hurdles:

      • Legal uncertainties (do we need a clean room implementation to make sure Gitlab Inc doesn’t sue for re-implementing the EE-only features into a Gitlab fork?)
      • The enormous complexity of the GitLab codebase will make any fork, to put it mildly, a major PITA to maintain. 2,264 people work for GitLab FFS (with hundreds in dev/ops), it’s indecent.

      Honestly I think I’d be happy if forgejo supported gitlab-runner, that seems like a much more reasonable ask given the clean interface between runner and server. Maybe I should experiment with that…