On 9/29/15 3:36 PM, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> ...What we're not fine with is depending on a proprietary
> system, no
> matter what type of license, as infrastructure...
>
>
> Exactly. Which is why I was warning about latching onto features
> only available in the closed enterprise version.
>
> Like Tom, I more or less promised myself not to get terribly
> involved in this discussion. Oh, well.
>
>
> me too, but I have to mention one problem we should have in mind - it's
> independency from political games (sanctions). Think about developers
> from Russia, who one day may be blocked by Github, for example.
No one is suggesting we depend on proprietary or closed anything.
Community GitLab is NOT a "free sample". There are literally hundreds[1]
of people that have submitted code to it.
The only thing I did suggest is that the easiest way to kick the tires
on it would probably be to just plug into their cloud service. If people
like it then we'd run our own.
I wish people would at least consider this as an option because it
integrates a ton of different features together. It has *the potential*
to eliminate our need to keep maintaining CommitFest and buildfarm and
could also replace mediawiki.
If people are hell-bent on every tool being separate then fine, but I
get the distinct impression that everyone is discarding GitLab out of
hand based on completely bogus information.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
