I'm a member of a Gitter for a smart mirror project. It's been a fun way to connect with other fans of the project and the maintainers. Feels like a smart move.
I've been helping some early coders in the FreeCodeCamp Gitter and have been impressed with the quality of the app for a company with little capital. They have done a lot with short resources.
It would be better in my opinion for small Slack communities to transition to Gitter since Slack has said they do not plan to support large scale free communities in the long term.
Thank you Dangeranger! FreeCodeCamp is an incredible community and we've been glad to be able to support them in doing the amazing work that they're doing. Hopefully this announcement will help them go from strength to strength!
I’m not sure there are any Slack features that don’t fit into stock IRC v3. Basically everything they do is already supported or a draft. (Now just everyone has to implement it)
Now, possibly. But unless I'm totally wrong on the timeline, IRCv3 (not even talking about implementations) wasn't even close to that level when Slack started and thus is unlikely to be the base of their product. And even now, I wouldn't include v3 yet when talking about "stock IRC" in this context.
I don't know how Gitter support in matterbridge is implemented but it is great! Do try it out. I've been running a three-way discord+gitter+irc gateway for a long time.
This is a pretty great idea. For what I often deal with, the GitHub desktop client is okay (though obviously tied to GitHub), but then I was sad to also realize they don't offer it on Linux. (Maybe they assume Linux nerds don't need GUIs?)
I tried Tower when it was in beta for Windows, but the cost is too steep to justify it for me. But it seemed to be a lot more full featured than the GitHub client which isn't good for more than basic commits. And again, no Linux there either.
I'd definitely go for a solid, open source git client, and it's obviously very relevant to GitLab's business.
I'd personally (not speaking on behalf of the company) love to acquire Sublime, but it's probably too expensive at this point. I'm pretty sad to see Atom eclipse Sublime so much recently, Sublime is so much faster and change is hard :( If only it were open source.
Yeah, unfortunately that's because we made a mistake, here's the relevant issue if you want more info (PDF because it's a private repo so I can't link directly to it unfortunately):
I think open sourcing here just shows that the code is irrelevant and is not the money maker. I guarantee you nobody is moving off slack because gitter is "open source". People might move to gitter because is it integrated into gitlab self-hosted though (this is what will happen and mattermost will be phased out despite what they say).
In this case we didn’t even press “Publish” :) The original link was just a preview link that was shared internally so people could review the announcement. Unfortunately someone received it without proper context, didn’t realize it was a draft/preview link, and thought it was ready to share.
Every next move by Gitlab makes them grow in my eyes, personaly. Few weeks ago I started using it as my main "portfolio", it's not much but I really like their way of thinking, openness and providing services. Their whole eco-system is looking really interesting right now, and I hope they will continue to advance and grow.
They definitely have a very interesting strategy, one that is well suited to their target market (= programmers). They're probably the most open company I've seen. Still, I can't justify moving off GitHub, for now. Gitlab has some growing left to do, especially on the SaaS part.
We hear you and agree, GitLab.com is too slow. We're working on multiple things to improve it https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/infrastructure/issues/947 GitLab 9.1 will have lots of performance improvements for database queries. The GItaly team is working hard to move git commands to the fileservers to reduce latency, that will happen in about a month from now.
As a thought for the performance diagnosis part of things, if your network switches have the option to enable NetFlow (also known as IPFIX), it can be extremely useful.
It does need to be paired with something that can capture and display the NetFlow data well. But with that, you can literally see what data is going where in your network, accurate to the byte. And with a good visualisation solution, you have the data historically too, so you can (easily) match things up time wise.
eg a developer writes a bad query which pulls 1/2 the database over the network to the front end server for filtering results there, instead of filtering them in the database. You can see that on the network fairly easily, and let the developer self-educate (if given access to the tools). ;)
As an aside, the gold standard used to be a commercial product called "NetFlow Tracker". It was amazing (fond memories), but the company behind it (Fluke Networks) didn't seem to know anything about software sales. So, it's now discontinued. :(
Hopefully there's a modern version of that somewhere. :)
We're working very hard on making GitLab.com much faster. Right now, it's measurably (and more importantly: measured [0]) faster than it was a month ago.
If you would like to follow progress you can dive into it all here [1]. One of the spearpoints is Gitaly, which should significantly improve git access.
Let's be honest, does anyone pay full price beyond 10 users? If there's anything I've learned it's that the word "enterprise" means "negotiable." I suspect they put that out there so they have a place to start without the costly interaction of emails coming in saying "how much for x people."
I like Github's UI slightly better (though it's been about a year since I've tried Gitlab)... the recent db issue has me concerned though.
That said, I think it's always worth considering using a tool because of their options for the open-source community... github, travis-ci etc have changed the way a lot of people work. GitLab might be what I reach for for self-hosting, but more likely to try the community/open edition first.
Using VSO (VisualStudio.com) for hosting at work, and some of the integration parts are very nice... Though no idea what a private TFS instance costs.
I use Gitlab and the DB issue only affected me in regards to CI, and I believe this is true to anyone that was affected at all.
They did a manual Backup before meddling with stuff so they only lost data from a really small timeframe.
CI downtime, on the other hand, is troublesome. I love using Gitlab CI and it didn't take me more than a few minutes to manually deploy what I had to, but I decided I need most of my CI to be controlled by me.
The end result is a simple refactor of my test and deploy specs to their own rake tasks (Could be Bash scriots or whatever) and I'll have Gitlab run a simple gle command, if it goes down I run the command manually...
Now some eventual downtime is not such a deal breaker anymore, and I continue having private repos and CI (Awesome CI) for even the smallest (And private) projects I work on... Not a bad deal if I do say so myself.
$21/user/month billed annually in packs of 10 (what your source says) would be $252/user/year in $2520 increments. It's actually (per the GHE features page) $2500/year for each 10 user pack though, which is $250/user/year.
GitLab Enterprise Starter is $39/user/year, and GitLab Enterprise Premium is $199/user/year.
Thanks for the confidence in our approach :D Being open and honest about everything is super important to our company culture. We definitely have some great stuff in the pipeline for the next few months.
I started a new project recently, and put it on Gitlab instead of GitHub. I'm very pleased so far, and have been finding reasons to justify encouraging others to move projects there as well.
First and foremost for me are protected branches. For everywhere I've worked, giving someone commit access to the main repository means giving them the ability to rewrite history on the release branch as well. GitLab solves that nicely by allowing committers to append only to protected branches by default.
I'm also warming to the idea of treating CI as "pipelines", and find myself thinking of tooling more in that way.
GitHub has that too, I noticed the other day. I still think Gitlab is much better, and use it by default for everything new, but fair's fair :P
I love the integrated CI, though, and the use cases it enables. I love that I can just make a pipeline that lints, tests and compiles my code and then, if all of those pass, ends with deploying it to production.
There are many more Gitlab features I like a lot, and the fact that they're all integrated is icing on the cake.
It took forever for GitHub to get anything, until Gitlab lit a fire under their ass. GitHub were perfectly content just resting on their laurels while every essential feature was handled by a different $15/mo third party service.
The biggest thing I think would encourage more projects to move is improving discoverability. On Github, I can very easily search for new projects to contribute to, and their Explore page [1] is very nice. Gitlab's, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have a way to browse by category like Github.
For everything else, I like Gitlab a lot -- it seems to have the best integration of tools of any code host.
I completely agree. Actually, I think Github could do a better job with discovery too. The Explore page is a decent start, but why don't I get personalized recommendations for new projects?
Yes, that would be nice -- look at the languages my code is written in or the categories my code is, it makes sense to suggest new projects based on that.
I recently setup a small personal project on Gitlab as well. I've been very impressed. I was able to setup a private repo, with a CI setup that builds my code and runs my tests every time i push a commit.. all on their servers. For free.
What happens to Mattermost? They even touched on this ...
"What about Mattermost, how is this different?
Gitter was built to be used in the open. We’ve always seen Gitter as a network, or a place where people can come to connect to one another. Team collaboration, whilst possible, has never been a core aspect of the Gitter experience.
Mattermost is a powerful, integrated messaging product for team collaboration - we will continue to ship and recommend using Mattermost for internal team communication."
They surely have the best intentions. Hopefully one product doesn't take priority over the other and/or they can prevent cannibalization. There's definite overlap.
Mattermost is developed by another team https://about.mattermost.com/company/ that is separate from the GitLab/Gitter team. So I think both will continue to grow without affecting each other.
Have you actualy used Gitlab? I can't say they are becoming bloated, because they services are of high quality? Have you tried their CI/CD? Github is stagnating. Yeah, they are industry standard, but competition is best thing that can happen to them and users.
I haven't seen them promoting that hard as you describe.
I wrote my comment of the pure satisfaction with their services and my use case. So stop being ignorant and be civilized and at least argument what you say. What happened to them month ago was an accident that could happen to many others, but the difference was that they were 100% open about it, with others you may won't even know shit is happening.
Nobody forces you to use anything.
Edit: And now you edit and delete 90% of comment, nice.
Have you actualy used Gitlab? I can't say they are becoming bloated, because they services are of high quality? Have you tried their CI/CD? Github is stagnatingn. Yeah, they are industry standard, but competition is best thing that can happen to them and users.
I have. I've installed Gitlab and Mattermost on my own server. Gitlab is great but I found Slack was a better product (over Mattermost). Have you tried installing it?
I created a Gitlab account and was planning on using it over Github but their recent data loss scared me off. Is that unreasonable? It worries me just as much to see them buying a company a month after that. Is slowing down unreasonable?
I want to use Gitlab. I like their open approach, but if people just praise them without being objective about it it doesn't benefit any of us. I might just be a selfish and/or entitled user but you'll forgive me for wanting Gitlab to be good. Don't you?
I had some confusion with the install. It seems the Docker install is favored, but not using a lot of Docker stuff I went with the gitlab-omnibus install on Ubuntu 16.10.
It worked but I didn't feel especially comfortable with it, there were a number of steps. That's vague enough be useless and it could have just been my own ignorance. What is the suggested install if that isn't too basic of a question?
I also had issues with it not liking users sending rather large files but I believe that's an odd use case.
I would use it again but the simplicity of Slack (no setup and no management) won out for now.
Imo github has the much better user interface. I wouldn't say gl became bloated, but it is not easy to navigate around. At one point, I think, it is necessary to 'rethink' the UI, i.e. to arrange the parts into one consistent beautiful whole.
That is true. GitHub really got it with the UI, and it was so easy to get used to. Later on, I was thinking I was having slight problems with GL's interface because I was so used to GitHub, but after some time spending on GitLab, I think they really could rethink the UI.
I hope this spurns more OSS communities to move to gitter. As much as I enjoy slack, limits on features like search and invites creates a friction that I think a service like gitter can help solve.
Personally the fragmentation of these random chat services does little to make me want to get involved in project chat discussions.
I wish project maintainers would stick to a network like freenode and just occupy a channel there dedicated to the project. I'm already set-up to take part in discussions there, I don't need to use a web browser etc.
Totally agree with this. Having to join 10+ Slack-like groups to collaborate on open source projects is unrealistic for me. As a result, I don't frequent some projects' chats and stick to bug trackers/mailing lists -- as a result of that I miss out on a lot of the camaraderie that comes with contributing to open source. I've missed out on a few conversations where decisions were made too. Being in multiple groups on these services is a huge pain point for me, whereas being on multiple IRC servers in multiple channels is far less invasive to my time and computer resources ;D. I'm not necessarily advocating that everyone use IRC for everything, but it seems like a lot of us had standardized on IRC for OSS before most of these services came along.
Also I'm salty that most of these Slack-like services have no ignore feature/minimal moderation tools which are both things I've leaned on heavily when working with communities. That's probably a rant for another day, but it's related to why I really dislike using some of these things.
This might just be my perception, but it seems like most people I come across in this field were on IRC at some point.
>most of these Slack-like services have no ignore feature/minimal moderation tools
This is what pushed me away from using Slack with a group of gamers I admin for. I can understand Slack's desire to stick to the workplace and how that leads to "if you need to /ignore a co-worker your company has problems implementing /ignore in Slack can't fix." And I can understand Mattermost wanting to become the opensource/on-prem analog of that. But it really falls apart when you try to use that kind of system with users that don't know you, aren't on your payroll or have issues with rules - like open source developers, or gamers.
My group eventually switched to Discord for, among other things, its amazing ACL-style permissions system, frictionless inviting and unlimited history (iirc, getting history with the first tier of paid Slack would have cost us ~11k USD/year?). It's not perfect - I really hope their bot API gets some love, and of course the ability to host your own server would be nice (though I understand some of the catch-22's there) - but I like it a LOT and I keep encountering new groups of people with Discord servers where I can just idle using one client. This is MUCH more IRC-like experience than I ever got with Slack (for instance, switching between or getting/setting notification alert levels on several different servers is much more ergonomic on Discord than on Slack).
I've not used Gitter a whole lot - just a couple of times when I had a question for some project that had one - but my impression is that it leans more towards "chat with strangers about $topic" (like Discord) and less towards "chat with colleagues about work" (like Slack). In that respect, I'd lay a small amount of money that Gitter does have an /ignore command, among other tools that you miss from IRC.
Does anyone have an insight into the differences between Slack, Mattermost, and Gitter? I have only ever used Slack before but it seems like Gitlab is already heavily invested with Mattermost. That makes me wonder what the future looks like for both Mattermost and Gitter. Are they different enough that they can both coexist without hurting either product or is one of them destined to be folded into the other in hopes of taking on Slack more directly?
Gitter is targeted at providing a public channel around a project, Mattermost is more Slack-like for team-internal organisation (with multiple channels, user management etc)
Thanks - haven't heard of Gitter, came to the comments to ask about the potential impact to Mattermost. Sounds like there's room for these two to coexist within GitLab.
We chose gitter over slack as an open core company. I close leads, hire engineers, and run our team chat all on one platform. (We supplement this with hangouts) . The idea that all of my activity and communications can happen on one platform is pretty appealing. We also don't need many features (aside from better search please!)
Gitter has been working on a content system called Topics. https://gitter.im/gitterHQ/topics. It's still in Beta, but Q&A and structured content is definitely something that - in addition to chat - we think is important.
That's really awesome! Does it run like a mailing list system? One of the #1 pain points in running FOSS projects is creating and managing a mailing list, with archive browsing that doesn't look atrocious.
very interesting, the UI throws me off though, for instance are topics somehow correlated to the channels I have open (i.e. the list on the left)? Can I access Topics from the desktop client?
I guess you can remove OSQA from that list. It's now abandoned, with no new commits and the developers strongly encouraging to use their commercial offering...
I'm currently in the processor of migrating an OSQA site to AskBot, which seems currently maintained.
I'm sorry but we don't comment on acquisitions prices. Being transparent about it is not common in the industry and us doing this by default might make future acquisitions harder since the company being acquired might not like it. Also see https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/general-guidelines/ "Most things are public unless there is a reason not to. Not public by default are: financial and legal information"
I think even public companies often disclose the prices though, especially for major ones. This being said, I have been thinking about the GitLab IPO, including things like fixing Reg FD for a while now.
> I think even public companies often disclose the prices though,
"Even public companies"? Public companies are required to report a lot of financial information publicly that non-public companies are neither required to report nor in the habit of reporting.
'Whether or not there a separate disclosure about a specific transaction (including its price and form of consideration) depends on the size of the acquisition relative to the size of the company and whether the acquisition is "material." Accounting rules define "materiality" in an intentionally broad way. From FASB Statement of Concepts #2:
The omission or misstatement of an item in a financial report is material if, in the light of surrounding circumstances, the magnitude of the item is such that it is probable that the judgment of a reasonable person relying upon the report would have been changed or influenced by the inclusion or correction of the item.
In practice, a company's auditors will set a materiality threshold based on a company's revenue, assets, and net income. Thus, big companies can make small acquisitions without disclosing much.'
..because financials is something people hope a company to be more open. It takes quite alot of courage to honestly reveal all the salaries. Then you wouldn't need a calculator anymore. So probably you should consider when you are acquiring talent, talent may set the price based on their own needs and have a right to negotiate. You shouldn't first of all, build an annoyingly outdated calculator and give it to HR to reject good talent and rely on community to mess up when the decision to build that calculator was mostly to serve company's own purpose. (which probably why its more biased to downpaying employees)
I love Gitlab but sadly, quite a lot of services that offer free accounts for open source projects (TravisCI comes to mind), generally don't integrate with Gitlab
It's one of the few reasons why I am still using Github :( .
I feel this way too. Not specifically about travis but about providing github integration as the only option
Git is supposed to be distributed! How hard is it to ask people to provide a git url and tell them to push events to a webhook?
Let us know what projects you miss seeing integrated with GitLab and we'll try our best to convince them, help them in any way to make sure it happens!
As other point out, you should be able to use GitLab CI instead of Travis, they configure very similarly. That said, I'd welcome them integrating fully with us as well.
I've used Gitlab CI before and I do like it, but TravisCI allowed for some granular control that Gitlab CI does not have (or that I am doing wrong) - for example, ability to run specific tests in case of pull/merge requests (TrasisCI has an environment variable for it).
As for other projects - the most important one for me was clubhouse.io (Gitlab Issues is great but just not as good as clubhouse.io)
> I've used Gitlab CI before and I do like it, but TravisCI allowed for some granular control that Gitlab CI does not have (or that I am doing wrong) - for example, ability to run specific tests in case of pull/merge requests (TrasisCI has an environment variable for it).
Ah interesting! You can't do this now with GitLab, but we're working on supporting merge requests as special cases [0].
> As for other projects - the most important one for me was clubhouse.io (Gitlab Issues is great but just not as good as clubhouse.io)
Clubhouse sure looks nice! GitLab Issues is getting better every release and in 9.0 (March 22nd), we have some big changes for Issue Boards.
I've asked our PM on Issues (Victor) to check out Clubhouse and hopefully we can convince them to integrate with us in some way.
Gitlab has its own CI. Are you sure you need Travis? Especially if you're the owner of project and can make a switch. Imo all open source programs should make the switch. Gitlab stands better for the community that github does.
Generally I have the opinion that the CI of gitlab is much more powerful because of real Docker usage (and also works on private repos for free). Speaking about the gitlab CI... why is there no status or statistics page about it on status.gitlab.com and why is a new build pending over 30 minutes currently (now) ?
I'm in a similar situation. I have a Gitlab account and am fine using it for personal projects but it's challenging to convince existing projects to move their repositories over. I'll start considering gitlab.com more seriously after the performance improvements mentioned in another thread here are rolled out.
I would prefer if Gitlab CI was a separate product but there probably isn't a lot of benefit for Gitlab to do that. If you want to have Gitlab CI job results displayed in your Github branches you could try this test service:
This appears more like a acqui-hire. Also, since mattermost is bundled as part of GitLab, it makes me wonder why they didn't acquire mattermost instead.
This is good though because mattermost is open-source only on paper. They refuse to integrate important features even when people contribute code (to protect their commercial version).
Third, people see GitLab as GitHub competitor. But really it competes with Atlassian.
When people don't follow the guidelines, and when they work hard to contribute something before engaging with the broader community--especially when it totally works but can't be officially accepted--we feel terrible.
You can follow the links there to go into detailed, heated discussions around this in our own Mattermost instance.
In our manifesto, we lay out the purpose of the open source Mattermost Team Edition, and about the commercial Enterprise Edition (https://www.mattermost.org/manifesto/), and--at least in my mind--our decisions are based on scope (What purpose does X serve? Where should it belong, if at all)?
Our contribution guidelines are in our docs, they're in our developer docs, they're displayed to contributors before they can submit a merge request, and yet with the size of our community, we still have mistakes and awkward threads.
I hope we can do better here. If anyone would like to discuss, you're welcome to join our community server: https://pre-release.mattermost.com/
Third, yes, agree, GitLab is certainly competing with Atlassian, and winning a lot.
Think about your favorite github repo, or even just a very specific one, and there is always a few people talking about this repo: https://gitter.im/rails/rails
That is awesome news. I have been using Gitlab for the last year. I switched over my personal projects and 3 organizations I was advicing from GitHub.
They won me with their data centers in Asia and Europe.
GitHub is extremely slow in Asia and they do not want to change.
The point of the first link is that free Gitter is already better than free Slack, so companies would be willing pay to have guaranteed support/uptime/etc from Gitter.
Thanks Sandeep. We assume that it is easier to charge money to enterprises than open source communities. If we see strong adoption and feature requests from the enterprise we'll consider adopting an open-core model and charging for it. For now the adoption is mainly from open source communities and we think of our costs as a marketing expense.
No - because, like discord, gitter makes it a point to make privacy very hard to set up. This is fairly deliberate and is the reason why enterprises have a hard time adopting it.
Can you explain how Discord makes privacy hard to set up? Servers by default are private (No one can join or even see the server unless they are invited to it). You can disable people's ability to create invites with a 3 clicks.
(disclaimer: work at Discord & fishing for feedback about how we can make this easier)
So, this is related to another comment I made. We are not hosting our own. We want to throw money at discord bringing in enterprise like features in its hosted version.
I linked to a ticket - if you follow that trail, there are many more.
Sandeep, it's interesting that you view it that way, but it was never our intention to deliberately make privacy hard. When creating a new room, you can choose to make it public, private and optionally allow anyone from your GitHub org to join your private room. See http://imgur.com/jIb8EKA
It's definitely true that the product focus on Gitter has always been more on public rooms. That's because the focus of our company has always been on the network of public communities, rather than enterprise features, which we feel are well represented in the market by other great products like Slack, Mattermost, etc.
I completely understand and respect that. It was not a complaint - but cognizance that you had a certain philosophy in mind.
Forget slack - look at hipchat which has far simpler privacy controls. The ability to create an organization (NOT linked to GitHub), per channel permissions is all that's needed. Hipchat makes this dead simple.
Lots of different people will have different requirements - some people will need Active Directory even, but essentially the only two things needed for enterprise messaging is permissions and search.
332 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 363 ms ] threadI've been helping some early coders in the FreeCodeCamp Gitter and have been impressed with the quality of the app for a company with little capital. They have done a lot with short resources.
It would be better in my opinion for small Slack communities to transition to Gitter since Slack has said they do not plan to support large scale free communities in the long term.
edit; typo
Google cache: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XWzfaA...
The Gitlab folks really know how to do it. It is of course the rational approach to it, but still, that's a bold move.
Source? First time I hear that, and it seems unlikely, since they have quite a few features that don't fit nicely in stock IRC.
More details can be found on the developer site: https://developer.gitter.im/docs/faye-endpoint
We also have an open-source IRC bridge: https://github.com/gitterHQ/irc-bridge
I tried Tower when it was in beta for Windows, but the cost is too steep to justify it for me. But it seemed to be a lot more full featured than the GitHub client which isn't good for more than basic commits. And again, no Linux there either.
I'd definitely go for a solid, open source git client, and it's obviously very relevant to GitLab's business.
You can actually use GitHub Desktop with any repo: https://help.github.com/desktop/faq/articles/do-you-support-... (Although it looks like you have to clone it first?)
Seriously, SublimeText, which is $70 closed-source.
Less seriously, macOS and iLife. I'd be ok to pay €200/year/user for an OS of that quality, as long as it's open-source.
Not all of it. version.gitlab.com is one of GitLab's closed source IPs.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByoIqX0IDB5scWpJT0JKTHQtTG8...
We do want to open source it when we can.
Edits: typos, wrote from phone.
Still, good luck to them :-)
Mozilla does this to great effect:
http://www.arewefastyet.com/
https://areweslimyet.com/
http://www.arewewebyet.org/
This doesn't show all the graphs we need to show like 99th percentile request latency but that will come when we add Unicorn support to Prometheus.
It does need to be paired with something that can capture and display the NetFlow data well. But with that, you can literally see what data is going where in your network, accurate to the byte. And with a good visualisation solution, you have the data historically too, so you can (easily) match things up time wise.
eg a developer writes a bad query which pulls 1/2 the database over the network to the front end server for filtering results there, instead of filtering them in the database. You can see that on the network fairly easily, and let the developer self-educate (if given access to the tools). ;)
As an aside, the gold standard used to be a commercial product called "NetFlow Tracker". It was amazing (fond memories), but the company behind it (Fluke Networks) didn't seem to know anything about software sales. So, it's now discontinued. :(
Hopefully there's a modern version of that somewhere. :)
If you would like to follow progress you can dive into it all here [1]. One of the spearpoints is Gitaly, which should significantly improve git access.
[0]: http://monitor.gitlab.net/dashboard/db/fleet-overview?from=n...
[1]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/infrastructure/issues/947
Some people (say, big companies) think exactly the opposite because they are after an on-prem solution, and for that Gitlab kicks Github's ass.
Ouch. If you run your own servers already it's financially worth hosting your own gitlab at the minimum price point.
I expect it will be the big orgs who don't move due to integration costs.
That said, I think it's always worth considering using a tool because of their options for the open-source community... github, travis-ci etc have changed the way a lot of people work. GitLab might be what I reach for for self-hosting, but more likely to try the community/open edition first.
Using VSO (VisualStudio.com) for hosting at work, and some of the integration parts are very nice... Though no idea what a private TFS instance costs.
They did a manual Backup before meddling with stuff so they only lost data from a really small timeframe.
CI downtime, on the other hand, is troublesome. I love using Gitlab CI and it didn't take me more than a few minutes to manually deploy what I had to, but I decided I need most of my CI to be controlled by me.
The end result is a simple refactor of my test and deploy specs to their own rake tasks (Could be Bash scriots or whatever) and I'll have Gitlab run a simple gle command, if it goes down I run the command manually...
Now some eventual downtime is not such a deal breaker anymore, and I continue having private repos and CI (Awesome CI) for even the smallest (And private) projects I work on... Not a bad deal if I do say so myself.
[1] https://github.com/pricing
$21 is per-month. Per-year that works out to $250/user. If we're going by the month, GitLab's pricing is $3.25/user.
GitLab Enterprise Starter is $39/user/year, and GitLab Enterprise Premium is $199/user/year.
I'm also warming to the idea of treating CI as "pipelines", and find myself thinking of tooling more in that way.
I love the integrated CI, though, and the use cases it enables. I love that I can just make a pipeline that lints, tests and compiles my code and then, if all of those pass, ends with deploying it to production.
There are many more Gitlab features I like a lot, and the fact that they're all integrated is icing on the cake.
For everything else, I like Gitlab a lot -- it seems to have the best integration of tools of any code host.
[1]: https://github.com/explore
Can't we be realistic about companies instead of getting wild eyed? You don't have any reservations about recent events?
"What about Mattermost, how is this different?
Gitter was built to be used in the open. We’ve always seen Gitter as a network, or a place where people can come to connect to one another. Team collaboration, whilst possible, has never been a core aspect of the Gitter experience.
Mattermost is a powerful, integrated messaging product for team collaboration - we will continue to ship and recommend using Mattermost for internal team communication."
They surely have the best intentions. Hopefully one product doesn't take priority over the other and/or they can prevent cannibalization. There's definite overlap.
I haven't seen them promoting that hard as you describe.
I wrote my comment of the pure satisfaction with their services and my use case. So stop being ignorant and be civilized and at least argument what you say. What happened to them month ago was an accident that could happen to many others, but the difference was that they were 100% open about it, with others you may won't even know shit is happening.
Nobody forces you to use anything.
Edit: And now you edit and delete 90% of comment, nice.
I have. I've installed Gitlab and Mattermost on my own server. Gitlab is great but I found Slack was a better product (over Mattermost). Have you tried installing it?
I created a Gitlab account and was planning on using it over Github but their recent data loss scared me off. Is that unreasonable? It worries me just as much to see them buying a company a month after that. Is slowing down unreasonable?
I want to use Gitlab. I like their open approach, but if people just praise them without being objective about it it doesn't benefit any of us. I might just be a selfish and/or entitled user but you'll forgive me for wanting Gitlab to be good. Don't you?
No, please tell me how you installed a Slack server! (j/k, but it's also kind of the point: GitLab wins on-prem)
Mattermost team here, would welcome any feedback on how we could improve.
Here's a demo of Mattermost features vs Slack as FYI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKqHWqrAgpk
I had some confusion with the install. It seems the Docker install is favored, but not using a lot of Docker stuff I went with the gitlab-omnibus install on Ubuntu 16.10.
It worked but I didn't feel especially comfortable with it, there were a number of steps. That's vague enough be useless and it could have just been my own ignorance. What is the suggested install if that isn't too basic of a question?
I also had issues with it not liking users sending rather large files but I believe that's an odd use case.
I would use it again but the simplicity of Slack (no setup and no management) won out for now.
(My comment excludes the CI part)
Not trying to be snarky. Maybe it was a typo, but non-English speakers might not immediately get from that to the correct word.
I wish project maintainers would stick to a network like freenode and just occupy a channel there dedicated to the project. I'm already set-up to take part in discussions there, I don't need to use a web browser etc.
Also I'm salty that most of these Slack-like services have no ignore feature/minimal moderation tools which are both things I've leaned on heavily when working with communities. That's probably a rant for another day, but it's related to why I really dislike using some of these things.
This might just be my perception, but it seems like most people I come across in this field were on IRC at some point.
This is what pushed me away from using Slack with a group of gamers I admin for. I can understand Slack's desire to stick to the workplace and how that leads to "if you need to /ignore a co-worker your company has problems implementing /ignore in Slack can't fix." And I can understand Mattermost wanting to become the opensource/on-prem analog of that. But it really falls apart when you try to use that kind of system with users that don't know you, aren't on your payroll or have issues with rules - like open source developers, or gamers.
My group eventually switched to Discord for, among other things, its amazing ACL-style permissions system, frictionless inviting and unlimited history (iirc, getting history with the first tier of paid Slack would have cost us ~11k USD/year?). It's not perfect - I really hope their bot API gets some love, and of course the ability to host your own server would be nice (though I understand some of the catch-22's there) - but I like it a LOT and I keep encountering new groups of people with Discord servers where I can just idle using one client. This is MUCH more IRC-like experience than I ever got with Slack (for instance, switching between or getting/setting notification alert levels on several different servers is much more ergonomic on Discord than on Slack).
I've not used Gitter a whole lot - just a couple of times when I had a question for some project that had one - but my impression is that it leans more towards "chat with strangers about $topic" (like Discord) and less towards "chat with colleagues about work" (like Slack). In that respect, I'd lay a small amount of money that Gitter does have an /ignore command, among other tools that you miss from IRC.
Here's a blog post on differences with Mattermost and Slack: https://www.mattermost.org/what-slack-might-learn-from-its-o...
(edit: typo)
Looking forward to updates, thanks!
I'm currently in the processor of migrating an OSQA site to AskBot, which seems currently maintained.
You can read Gitter’s post: http://blog.gitter.im/2017/03/15/gitter-gitlab-acquisition/
And here is what VentureBeat had to say about the news: http://venturebeat.com/2017/03/15/gitlab-acquires-software-c...
UPDATE: and here is GitLab’s post with a few more details: https://about.gitlab.com/2017/03/15/gitter-acquisition/
Link to the live post: http://blog.gitter.im/2017/03/15/gitter-gitlab-acquisition/
"Even public companies"? Public companies are required to report a lot of financial information publicly that non-public companies are neither required to report nor in the habit of reporting.
The omission or misstatement of an item in a financial report is material if, in the light of surrounding circumstances, the magnitude of the item is such that it is probable that the judgment of a reasonable person relying upon the report would have been changed or influenced by the inclusion or correction of the item.
In practice, a company's auditors will set a materiality threshold based on a company's revenue, assets, and net income. Thus, big companies can make small acquisitions without disclosing much.'
from https://www.quora.com/For-a-public-company-when-does-the-siz...
It's one of the few reasons why I am still using Github :( .
TravisCI for instance, is easily replaced in all of my projects with Gitlab's integrated CI.
Isn't there a "but sadly I don't love its CI" missing from the middle of this? Why is Travis the problem?
As other point out, you should be able to use GitLab CI instead of Travis, they configure very similarly. That said, I'd welcome them integrating fully with us as well.
As for other projects - the most important one for me was clubhouse.io (Gitlab Issues is great but just not as good as clubhouse.io)
Ah interesting! You can't do this now with GitLab, but we're working on supporting merge requests as special cases [0].
> As for other projects - the most important one for me was clubhouse.io (Gitlab Issues is great but just not as good as clubhouse.io)
Clubhouse sure looks nice! GitLab Issues is getting better every release and in 9.0 (March 22nd), we have some big changes for Issue Boards.
I've asked our PM on Issues (Victor) to check out Clubhouse and hopefully we can convince them to integrate with us in some way.
[0]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/23902
I agree that we should have some status on CI as well, made an issue [1].
[0]: http://monitor.gitlab.net/dashboard/db/ci
[1]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/infrastructure/issues/1360
[0]: https://grafana.com/
[1]: https://prometheus.io/
I would prefer if Gitlab CI was a separate product but there probably isn't a lot of benefit for Gitlab to do that. If you want to have Gitlab CI job results displayed in your Github branches you could try this test service:
https://github.com/avtar/docker-push-ref-gitlab
This is good though because mattermost is open-source only on paper. They refuse to integrate important features even when people contribute code (to protect their commercial version).
Third, people see GitLab as GitHub competitor. But really it competes with Atlassian.
First, we love GitLab. While we'd be flattered with an offer to join them, Mattermost has its own mission and motivation (https://www.mattermost.org/why-we-made-mattermost-an-open-so...)
Second, regarding community contributions, we have an open and transparent process for proposing, discussing and vetting contributions before a pull request is made (https://docs.mattermost.com/developer/contribution-guide.htm...).
When people don't follow the guidelines, and when they work hard to contribute something before engaging with the broader community--especially when it totally works but can't be officially accepted--we feel terrible.
Recent example: https://github.com/mattermost/platform/pull/5718 Previous related example: https://github.com/mattermost/platform/pull/2718
You can follow the links there to go into detailed, heated discussions around this in our own Mattermost instance.
In our manifesto, we lay out the purpose of the open source Mattermost Team Edition, and about the commercial Enterprise Edition (https://www.mattermost.org/manifesto/), and--at least in my mind--our decisions are based on scope (What purpose does X serve? Where should it belong, if at all)?
Our contribution guidelines are in our docs, they're in our developer docs, they're displayed to contributors before they can submit a merge request, and yet with the size of our community, we still have mistakes and awkward threads.
I hope we can do better here. If anyone would like to discuss, you're welcome to join our community server: https://pre-release.mattermost.com/
Third, yes, agree, GitLab is certainly competing with Atlassian, and winning a lot.
But seriously - people are willing to throw money for an enterprise gitter - especially after https://medium.freecodecamp.com/so-yeah-we-tried-slack-and-w...
Look at the number of people begging Discord to take money from them - https://feedback.discordapp.com/forums/326712-discord-dream-...
gitter always had search working - discord just got it recently.
Isn't that just Slack?
Do you know of any enterprises using Gitter?
https://about.mattermost.com/
EDIT: Previously said open source, open core is the correct term.
Gitlab is incredible... but I really cant host right now. Same for mattermost.
I do believe that the ability to run a fairly large hosted system at scale and with incredible performance is what the gitter guys bring to the table.
(disclaimer: work at Discord & fishing for feedback about how we can make this easier)
I linked to a ticket - if you follow that trail, there are many more.
It's definitely true that the product focus on Gitter has always been more on public rooms. That's because the focus of our company has always been on the network of public communities, rather than enterprise features, which we feel are well represented in the market by other great products like Slack, Mattermost, etc.
(Background: I'm CTO/Cofounder at Gitter)
Forget slack - look at hipchat which has far simpler privacy controls. The ability to create an organization (NOT linked to GitHub), per channel permissions is all that's needed. Hipchat makes this dead simple.
Lots of different people will have different requirements - some people will need Active Directory even, but essentially the only two things needed for enterprise messaging is permissions and search.