[License-discuss] code hosting

[Thorsten Glaser]

Rick Moen dixit:

>Anyone's GitLab is also (IMVAO) grossly overengineered.  From my own

Yes, and I’d also not touch Ruby. I’ve not mentioned this much
because it was growing OT (hence the Subject change).

>better-designed alternatives such as Gogs and Gitea.

*cough* sshd and gitweb, and a post-receive hook for mails…

>The result in both cases is _theoretically_ open source (well, open
>core in GitLab CE's case), but you'd be a masochist to actually run

Open Core has its own problems: often, the comments are stripped
from what is published (which I really consider not OSS, even if
it follows the letter of the licence), and even if not (and it’s
proper OSS _software_) it’s not proper OSS _community_ because the
company will reject patch submissions adding features to the “open
core” version that reduces the “value added” of their commercial
version.

>perplexed that Debian Project EOLed its perfectly adequate Alioth site
>for, of all things, GitLab CE.  They must hate their Operations team.

Their operations team consisted of the lead FusionForge developer
(who freelances around and has been seen less and less in Debian,
but his job was mainly the adjustments to the infrastructure) and
one-and-a-half other persons who did all the maintenance. These
were the driving powers behind the move… they considered Feodora’s
thing “Pagure” then surprised everyone with the switch to Gitlab CE
and “run” (for very low values thereof) that since.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
<ch> you introduced a merge commit        │<mika> % g rebase -i HEAD^^
<mika> sorry, no idea and rebasing just fscked │<mika> Segmentation
<ch> should have cloned into a clean repo      │  fault (core dumped)
<ch> if I rebase that now, it's really ugh     │<mika:#grml> wuahhhhhh