1. Our EE version has the function share project with other groups http://doc.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/share_projects_with_other_... If this is essential for you we'll give you a free lifetime license for GitLab EE.
2. You can add custom labels on issues and the searches can be stored in urls that you can bookmark and use in links. You might have considered this already and need more functionality. Maybe it is best to discuss this in an issue so I created https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/10712 Please add there what you need in addition to the labels functionality. We addressed the long list of items raised in the original Google Doc letter below the signatures in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/8938#improvem... The first item under improvements details our reponse to that question.
3. In GitLab you can give each user a fixed number of new projects. That should prevent people from storing a excessive amount of repo's. But feel free to make a feature request to limit people to only forks. As other replies have indicated that still allows people to work around it but at least the intention will be clear.
4. A custom landing page and logo is an EE feature http://doc.gitlab.com/ee/customization/branded_login_page.ht... We think this is more relevant for larger organizations so we're comfortable for having it as EE only at the moment. As mentioned under 1. we're open to offering you (and other open source projects considering self-hosting) a lifetime EE license.
I'll be in the comments today (just woke up in SF). You and any other open source project can always reach me at sytse@ company domain to get assistance or claim the EE license.
The whole idea of VideoLAN infrastructure migration from gitweb/trac/etc to gitlab and not to github was to use and promote free and open-source software.
Using closed-source software there is out of question, really.
[1] I.e. a licensing model based on GPL and selling services that Red Hat uses for RHEL, instead of a licensing model like they, and a minority of the "open source" companies, use.
Anyway, maybe you could be a bit more specific about the problem you see with our model, I would love to get specific. Also see https://about.gitlab.com/about/#stewardship
BTW I presume RedHat choose a GPL license for RHEL because they didn't have a choice due to the GPL license on Linux.
We tried charging only for support but now that we have the Omnibus packages it is rare for users to need support (and we like it that way).
"This software and associated documentation files (the "Software") may only be used if you (and any entity that you represent) have agreed to, and are in compliance with, the GitLab Subscription Terms of Service, available at https://about.gitlab.com/terms/#subscription (the “EE Terms”), and otherwise have a valid GitLab Enterprise Edition subscription for the correct number of user seats."
1. Thanks, but see above :)
2. As I said, custom labels are way too limited, as people on the open-letter-to-github said, so I will comment on the issue.
3. Will do.
4. same as 1 :) But thanks a lot.
I will contact you :)
With MIT license, many sites probably just implement the branding changes etc in the CE product on their own.
So thanks for the offer, but no thanks.
While I get the sentiment, I don't think this helps. If you want to help the Open Source community, give us what we need in the form of open source. If I don't care about vendor lock-in I can go ahead and use GitHub. GitLab counts because its open source, and its open source version is the only thing the open source community should care about.
I have seen the feature of being able to customize the login screen come up in discussions about gitlab come up so many times, in so many places, and I usually see it met with "EE feature" or a community member saying something like "gitlab is open source just change the files on your server".
This seems like such a basic thing for an open source software like gitlab to just provide out of the box, i can't believe it isn't listed under your " ... an EE feature that is would come up frequently in these conversations ... " that you "would not hesitate to open source". Especially since at least several of the people you're replying to in this thread have mentioned it specifically.
Is gitlab really making enough income from enterprises who decide that this is the killer feature that they need to pay for EE to get?
It seems like a simple matter of moving the gitlab branding on the login page to the footer with a "powered by gitlab" type of thing and a logo.
Please don't take my meaning as a hateful rant, I love gitlab and personally manage 2 seperate deployments of gitlab CE, but i am not ashamed of saying that this is something of a frusteration to me, and I have a hard time taking this
>If there is an EE feature that is would come up frequently in these conversations we would not hesitate to open source it
statement seriously in light of how many times I have seen this seemingly harmless feature shot down for essentially no real reason.
I've made https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/11489 to discuss.
On a technical level that seems an impossible distinction to make. Someone wanting to host a new project could just fork yours, then make a a commit that deletes everything currently in there, then start their new project.
Having a fork that delete everything and start a new projet is easy to detect and label as spam. (there will always be abuses, but it's okay as long as you can mitigate/moderate)
We're planning to add cross-server merge requests in the future, which would make it that you don't have to host the forks yourself [0].
Sure, but at least it would be clear what is 'allowed'.
redmine, gitlab, bitbucket, github are what I am using for various things.
I wonder if this could be solved by making it really easy to fork your repos, but when that happens the fork ends up (with tight integration) back on the/a public GitLab instance.
Isn't this use-case covered by Gitlab's issue labels?
http://trac.edgewall.org/wiki/TracReports
http://trac.edgewall.org/wiki/TracQuery
http://trac.edgewall.org/ticket/1735
Add in:
http://trac.edgewall.org/wiki/TracTicketsCustomFields
And there's a lot of things available before adding custom plugins.
I'd be interested to hear what limits vlc hit in trac (and why they'd rather move than improve trac. Nothing wrong with that - but I confess I have a soft spot for trac and the team's ethos of "try it as a plugin before making it a core feature").
Also curious if anyone know what, if anything happened with the Apache Bloodhound fork/distribution?
I always hoped it held the promise of being a simple to install, opinionated trac for multiple (lean?) projects. But as far as I can tell it was pretty much abandoned.
While part of it might be rails-angst and fear of precious stones - I always felt gitlab was a bit of a heavy hammer in terms of install/dependencies/cloc for "just" project management.
In practice the bundled distribution alleviates that - but I still feel taking the "best of trac" and writing a new system a little more opinionated (and probably with a clearer data model) would be worthwhile. Just another project on the todo-heap :)
We want for every bug, that a few custom fields are always defined, to do a partition of the bugs, and to be able to query on those. Moreover, to change the priority or the platform, it's quite complex to do and will break often. Many bugs won't have it filled, for example. Labels do not guarantee that consistency.
As you can see, it's already what people want in the github open letter.
Maybe having some set of mandatory labels? I.e. at least one label from platform list, at least one label from priority list, etc...
type-label
Types:
b - bug
f - feature
p - priority
t - team
Once there is a method to the madness, it's not bad, and it's more flexible on Gitlab's part I'm sure, to have people tag instead of supporting custom drop-down attributes.
For VLC and all related VideoLAN projects, we're moving to our own instance of GitLab hosted on our infrastructure.
And to be honest, it's quite good, but a few stuffs are ridiculously limited, to the point that some people in the community are resisting the change.
The first part is the groups and subgroups: it seems incredibly difficult to give sub-groups access to repos (like a team for iOS, one for Android, one for libVLC... but all are under the "videolan/" group). It seems there is a way with the EE, but not in the CE; and the current idea for the CE is to have sub-projects, which is not good, because it will make our URLs way more complex than needed.
The second part is the bugtracker/issues tracker. We use trac for VLC, and we want to leave it for something better; but gitlab issues is way too limited, even when using the templates. Especially, it seems to be impossible to add custom searchable fields (like "platforms", "priority" or "modules") which are very very useful to do queries. Also, there is no way to do custom queries and store them ("I want all the bugs for Windows, which are related to the interface modules").
If I remember correctly, this second part was also a complaint in the open letter to github.
Finally, it's not really related, since it's more a feature request, but we'd love to allow external people to fork our repos, but not create completely new ones (or have them validated) because we don't want to host any projects under the sun (there is github and gitlab for that). So far, you either allow both features or none of them.
PS: can we have custom landing pages and custom logo in the CE version? :D :D