| ▲ | tangotaylor 3 hours ago |
| I wish they would spill some tea and articulate why they moved. |
|
| ▲ | gchamonlive 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Would also like a write-up. People assume it's just because of GitHub outages, but GitHub is slightly worse in every aspect, so for big projects and organisations it compounds to being quite messy to manage and operate. GitLab is thought-out to support larger groups with more complex pipelines, and while it's got it's own set of quirks, it doesn't begin to compare, GitHub in contrast seems like a toy forge for toy projects. |
|
| ▲ | jeron 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| why? like having a dozen outages in the last couple months isn't a good enough reason why? |
| |
| ▲ | misnome 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | GitLab is just as bad, just not as big so doesn't get the coverage. https://status.gitlab.com/pages/history/5b36dc6502d06804c083... And of course many people self-host which changes a lot of the equation (which you can also do with GitHub, but not for free - and FWIW our self-hosted premium gitlab has about an hour a day downtime, which we've been told by the team responsible is an unavoidable side-effect of backing up gitlab). | | |
| ▲ | Volundr 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I was responsible for administering a self hosted GitLab instance for a medium sized company and our backups never required downtime. The built in backup command doesn't require downtime but also isn't a consistent point in time snapshot (specifically because the instance keeps running while the backup is being taken). If they've decided they need one for some reason, stopping GitLab is certainly the easiest way, but not the only way of accomplishing that goal, but that'll be true of any self-hosted forge, including GitHub. | | |
| ▲ | icefo 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You could stop it, do a snapshot of the storage and backup that for <1 min of downtime probably. But at the same time, if you're not a global company, doing it at 3am is probably fine. | | |
| ▲ | NewJazz an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It can be an issue if you are using gitlab as your container/package registry and production workloads need to pull from it, though. | | |
| ▲ | esseph an hour ago | parent [-] | | They should be pulling from a pull through scanning repository cache anyway, so they can be scanned before going into production. |
| |
| ▲ | LoganDark an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Doing a snapshot of the storage while it's running wouldn't be bad either, it'd be like having cut the power at the point of the snapshot, right? |
|
| |
| ▲ | mcrowder65 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Weird. I’ve been on a self hosted enterprise gitlab and I think we’ve have only one or two performance degradations/outages in the past 6 years | | |
| |
| ▲ | petermefrandsen 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Considering the sheer volume GitHub received lately I wouldn’t be surprised if GitLab would experience similar issues unless self hosted. Or what do you think? | |
| ▲ | tinyhouse 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No horse in this race but GitLab has been down a few times recently too. | |
| ▲ | prologic 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Or Microsoft/OpenAI (and others) just blatantly scraping all your codebases and violating thousands of OSS licneses? | | |
| ▲ | pjmlp 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If the repos are public, hosting location doesn't make a difference. | |
| ▲ | echelon 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We're going to need something more expansive than OSI software licenses for the future. Something like, "if you look at us, we must be able to look at you" | | |
| ▲ | abc42 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | How about "if you're not the customer, you're the product". | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | thirtyseven 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Roku uses Gitlab internally so could just be a standardization thing. |
| |
| ▲ | midnightclubbed 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Moving changes back and forth between gitlab and github is a pain. Could indeed be as simple as standardization and reducing development pains. | | |
| ▲ | otterley an hour ago | parent [-] | | What makes it more complicated than doing a Git push against two remotes? Assuming that one of those is used for collaboration and the other is just a mirror. | | |
| ▲ | darkstar999 an hour ago | parent [-] | | The CICD pipeline is not directly compatible, for one. | | |
| ▲ | otterley an hour ago | parent [-] | | You don’t need to run the CI/CD pipeline in both. Choose one as your collaboration space, and the other as a mirror. |
|
|
|
|
