The Enterprise edition features[1] are closed source, and these aren't strictly "enterprise-y" features like SAML authentication. It includes plenty of "basic" workflow features found on GitHub:

- Rebase merge requests before merge

- Use fast-forward merges when possible

- Create templates for issues and merge requests

- Display merge request status for builds on Jenkins CI

[1] https://about.gitlab.com/features/

It has many enterprise features including code ownership, issue templates, and a Gerrit like, sane code review workflow. You can fully integrate it with your CI tool and it even displays coverage results inline and such.

Ask me anything about it :) I'm not affiliated with it but am an experienced user.

https://www.phacility.com/phabricator/

On top of that it was really painless to install locally. I had it setup in under an hour, and that included my first time ever setting up my webserver with php, and first time configuring a mysql instance.

Based on my experience, Phabricator has some quirks but is quite solid, and the well-designed command line arc workflow would please folks who refuse to open a Web browser.

I wonder how it compares to GitLab. Is it possible to set up protected branches, where I can say, only users X and Y are allowed to push to the master branch? Can I do a code review and then finalize it when I'm finished and does the author get notified with a summary like the new GitHub code review feature? Because currently in GitLab the author does get a notification email for every line comment I make, which is also not really the perfect way of doing it.

I already know that Phabricator squashes the changes into one commit, I think I can live with that. (because it promotes small code reviews) Does Phabricator have any problems with git rebase, where I'm refreshing a feature branch with the most recent master state? What I really like about the merge/pull request workflow of GitLab is, that multiple developers can work together on one feature branch while a merge request is open and can be used as a discussion platform for the changes - is this possible with Phabricator?

Also I'm wondering how solid the issue tracking is, and if the project workboards can compete with Trello. Can it be used by non-developers without giving them access to the code?

Looking forward to test Phabricator tomorrow.

Yes. I recommend (and my employer uses) a Herald rule that admits pushes to master only if the changes are in an approved Diff (unit of code review). This way you get an enforced 2-man rule, but anyone besides the author can approve the change.

This is currently impossible with Gitlab AFAIK, and is the main reason I won't use it.

You can also configure Herald rules to add blocking reviewers to other people's Diffs based on arbitrary criteria (i.e. touches X file and it's a Tuesday). A Diff cannot be considered approved until all blocking reviewers have signed off.

Reviewers can also be groups, so you could say, for example, changes that touch Y file must be reviewed by Security, but any member of Security can sign off.

>Can I do a code review and then finalize it when I'm finished and does the author get notified with a summary like the new GitHub code review feature?

Yes, everything you do on a Diff is batched and happens all at once when you click "Submit" at the bottom. Inline comments, the free-form text box, and the action all come as one email.

> What I really like about the merge/pull request workflow of GitLab is, that multiple developers can work together on one feature branch while a merge request is open and can be used as a discussion platform for the changes - is this possible with Phabricator?

A Diff is really meant to be an individual's small, well-defined contribution. Multiple people submitting code to a one diff can get messy. This would be better modeled as many diffs.

You are allowed to land diffs against branches other than Master, however this gets messy. It is not a first-class use case. My employer does not collaborate on feature branches; instead we land half-finished features into master (and production) disabled by feature flags.

It is NOT a merge/pull-request workflow. It treats Git more like Subversion; Phabricator is a very sophisticated alternative to emailing patches around before SVN committing them (basically the equivalent of landing).

>Also I'm wondering how solid the issue tracking is, and if the project workboards can compete with Trello.

Issue tracking is totally solid, very configurable. Project workboards consist of tasks/issues, which are much more expensive to create than Trello cards: you fill out a pagelong form, pick type, severity, owning team, title, description, etc. vs just free-forming a title. However, you can drag tasks around the workboard just like Trello and it looks pretty similar.

>Can it be used by non-developers without giving them access to the code?

Yes. Permissions (and approval flows, and notification rules) are very configurable. Phabricator is well suited to a large organization with rules, but this suitability doesn't carry too much overheard.

I don't think you could collaborate on issues with customers. Nontechnical people in your company, though, totally - we do that.

Due to popular demand, they are adding some tools to allow merge/PR workflow. That being said, it was not stable last time I checked (~6 mo. ago), and it will probably take a while, if ever, for it to be as good as what's already there for Differential (the current code-review/landing system).

That being said, their existing tools are really good, and the fact that you are not married to a single VCS is really nice. You can have some legacy SVN repositories and be fine, and use the exact same interface for code-review and landing as in your shiny new git repositories. Prefer hg to git? No problem. Have some complicated gitolite setup you don't want to bother migrating? Phabricator works fine even when not hosting the repository.

I want to echo here what I said in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12501271 "If there are features that people think that should belong in the open source edition we're all ears. We've done so before https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10931347 A feature comparison between CE and EE can be found on about.gitlab.com/features/#compare "

Regarding the examples please help me understand:

1. Can you rebase in the GitHub interface?

2. Does GitHub have an option to fast forward merges?

3. Please let me know if this is a feature people want open sourced. EDIT turns out that this is part of the open source edition already https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/app/cont... I created https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/22185 to update the docs

4. We have a commit status API in GitLab CE https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/api/commits.html#commit-status and works with the open source https://github.com/jenkinsci/gitlab-plugin We do have additional integration in EE https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/integration/jenkins.html

BTW you might be happy to learn that what you mention as an example of typical "enterprise-y" feature is available in GitLab CE https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/integration/saml.html

If I'm reading this correctly, this exists in GitLab as an enterprise feature, so I think my earlier comment isn't too far off. There also appears to be some community feedback suggesting this should be a CE feature [2].

[1] https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-request-merges/ [2] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/4106

> 2. Does GitHub have an option to fast forward merges?

So is Gitlab's aim to just play catchup to Github?

We have a broader scope than GitHub, see our announcement broadcasted on Tuesday for more information and a demo https://about.gitlab.com/2016/09/14/gitlab-live-event-recap/

Github compromises by having a nice ecosystem of tools which you can plug in, but having it built in is always nice since the integration is tighter.

GitHub (annoyingly) can't do fast-forward merges from non-squashed PRs either.

Display merge request status for builds on Jenkins CI

GitLab implements basically the same API as GitHub for updating build status of commits from external services, or do I misunderstand what feature you mean?

But in general I agree, there are some options GitLab reserved for EE that really feel like they should be part of the CE as well.

And FWIW, I admire GitLab for their open source work. I just think it's worth distinguishing that it's not entirely open source.

When googling for the fast-forward feature one of the top results was this GitHub thread, which had quite a bit of activity fairly recently: https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/issues/2324

It seems like many posting there are not aware that this repository/bug tracker is not an official channel anymore -> maybe posting an automated comment in all issues with recent activity or locking them could help avoid confusion? If you arrive via search, you don't see the notice in the main repository description.

They have to make money after all.

The 'basic' product (which is far more than basic) is open source though, which incredible.

I'm not criticizing the product – they're welcome to open or not open source whatever they like. I'm just clarifying the description the parent used.

The review feature is very new in GL, and that plus all of the things you are mentioning within "everything in one spot" is available in this update (except maybe the coding env, not sure what that means anyway), if you've read the announcement. Github also has self hosting.

That's a pretty misleading characterisation. You can browse the source code, submit issues, see what's being worked on, contribute PRs, and freely download and run your own instance of GitLab. A handful of enterprise features aren't open sourced.

GitHub in contrast is a black box.

CE is a very large subset of EE. But yeah, maybe "open core" is a better term.

> except maybe the coding env, not sure what that means anyway

Koding integration (I haven't tried it yet) https://about.gitlab.com/2016/07/26/koding-and-gitlab-integr...

> if you've read the announcement

I assume you meant Github's announced features? Yeah, I think they're great.

> Github also has self hosting.

Costs $, Gitlab has free self hosting (updated parent comment)

We've had code review for many years now in GitLab. The coding env probably refers to our integration with Koding, an online IDE https://about.gitlab.com/2016/07/26/koding-and-gitlab-integr...

[1] https://github.com/blog/978-introducing-github-enterprise

We have companies scaling their GitHub Enterprise instance up to 25,000 users, and we also have a dedicated Enterprise Support team available 24/5 to resolve any technical issues.

I am not your target market, FWIW, but just a curious developer.

We also recognize that having a SaaS solution like GitHub Organizations meets the needs of many companies (over 75,000 at last count), and our announcement of 2FA enhancements today is an indication of our desire to continue that approach.