Re: Moving services

[Matthew Kelch via rockbox-dev]

Sorry -- sent the incorrect link. You can read about Inkscape moving from
Bazaar to GitLab.com here:
https://inkscape.org/en/news/2017/06/10/inkscape-moves-gitlab/

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 6:53 PM Matthew Kelch  wrote:

> Inkscape has just moved from bazaar to gitlab.com. You can read about it
> here: https://about.gitlab.com/gitlab-com/
>
> I think of all the options GitLab.com is what I would pick. In my
> experience it’s challenging for open source projects to maintain their own
> infrastructure (both because of cost and time). Using a hosted solution
> solves that issue completely. It’s also a mostly open source project with
> an easy migration path to a self-hosted product, unlike GitHub.
>
> GitLab isn’t perfect, but out of all the existing solutions out there, I
> think it’s the best. Their vision for end to end development workflow makes
> the most sense. In particular I’m really a big fan of the integrated CI
> approach GitLab has adopted. I’ve also been really impressed with how
> quickly they’ve been moving in terms of feature development lately.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:08 AM Jacob Mansfield via rockbox-dev <
> rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se> wrote:
>
>> On 1 June 2017 at 23:17, Amaury Pouly via rockbox-dev <
>> rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Just for information, I plan to delete the gitlab's rockbox clone. For
>>> some reason, it seems to make gitlab eats all the server's memory (a
>>> 'known' problem it appears). If anyone with Gitlab experience has a
>>> solution for this, I am interested. Otherwise it's clearly a big negative
>>> point for Gitlab for me.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's an interesting issue, I haven't seen that one on any of the
>> instances I manage. If you want, I can take a look (probably best to take
>> that off-list).
>>
>> I had a go at setting up Gitlab.com with a clone of the rockbox repo, and
>> got the full commit and branch history in without much trouble. I also set
>> it up to build the SDL version using Gitlsb's CI system and a Docker image.
>> Had a crack at the Archos ones as well, but that needs a bit more time
>> throwing at it. I haven't looked at moving the issues/bugs across, but that
>> shouldn't be too much trouble.
>>
>> It's available at https://gitlab.com/rockbox-player/rockbox if anyone
>> wants to take a look.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jacob Mansfield
>> www.jacobmansfield.co.uk
>> @KingCyberJacob 
>>
> --
> *Matthew Kelch*
> e: kel...@gmail.com
> c: 717-814-9595 <(717)%20814-9595>
>
-- 
*Matthew Kelch*
e: kel...@gmail.com
c: 717-814-9595

Re: Moving services

[Matthew Kelch via rockbox-dev]

Inkscape has just moved from bazaar to gitlab.com. You can read about it
here: https://about.gitlab.com/gitlab-com/

I think of all the options GitLab.com is what I would pick. In my
experience it’s challenging for open source projects to maintain their own
infrastructure (both because of cost and time). Using a hosted solution
solves that issue completely. It’s also a mostly open source project with
an easy migration path to a self-hosted product, unlike GitHub.

GitLab isn’t perfect, but out of all the existing solutions out there, I
think it’s the best. Their vision for end to end development workflow makes
the most sense. In particular I’m really a big fan of the integrated CI
approach GitLab has adopted. I’ve also been really impressed with how
quickly they’ve been moving in terms of feature development lately.

Thanks,
Matt

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:08 AM Jacob Mansfield via rockbox-dev <
rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se> wrote:

> On 1 June 2017 at 23:17, Amaury Pouly via rockbox-dev <
> rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se> wrote:
>
>>
>> Just for information, I plan to delete the gitlab's rockbox clone. For
>> some reason, it seems to make gitlab eats all the server's memory (a
>> 'known' problem it appears). If anyone with Gitlab experience has a
>> solution for this, I am interested. Otherwise it's clearly a big negative
>> point for Gitlab for me.
>>
>
>
> That's an interesting issue, I haven't seen that one on any of the
> instances I manage. If you want, I can take a look (probably best to take
> that off-list).
>
> I had a go at setting up Gitlab.com with a clone of the rockbox repo, and
> got the full commit and branch history in without much trouble. I also set
> it up to build the SDL version using Gitlsb's CI system and a Docker image.
> Had a crack at the Archos ones as well, but that needs a bit more time
> throwing at it. I haven't looked at moving the issues/bugs across, but that
> shouldn't be too much trouble.
>
> It's available at https://gitlab.com/rockbox-player/rockbox if anyone
> wants to take a look.
>
> Regards,
> Jacob Mansfield
> www.jacobmansfield.co.uk
> @KingCyberJacob 
>
-- 
*Matthew Kelch*
e: kel...@gmail.com
c: 717-814-9595

Re: Moving services

[Jacob Mansfield via rockbox-dev]

On 1 June 2017 at 23:17, Amaury Pouly via rockbox-dev <
rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se> wrote:

>
> Just for information, I plan to delete the gitlab's rockbox clone. For
> some reason, it seems to make gitlab eats all the server's memory (a
> 'known' problem it appears). If anyone with Gitlab experience has a
> solution for this, I am interested. Otherwise it's clearly a big negative
> point for Gitlab for me.
>


That's an interesting issue, I haven't seen that one on any of the
instances I manage. If you want, I can take a look (probably best to take
that off-list).

I had a go at setting up Gitlab.com with a clone of the rockbox repo, and
got the full commit and branch history in without much trouble. I also set
it up to build the SDL version using Gitlsb's CI system and a Docker image.
Had a crack at the Archos ones as well, but that needs a bit more time
throwing at it. I haven't looked at moving the issues/bugs across, but that
shouldn't be too much trouble.

It's available at https://gitlab.com/rockbox-player/rockbox if anyone wants
to take a look.

Regards,
Jacob Mansfield
www.jacobmansfield.co.uk
@KingCyberJacob 

Re: Moving services

[Amaury Pouly via rockbox-dev]

>
> There's another code review system that originated at Opera Software.
> It's called "Critic": https://github.com/jensl/critic
>
> The idea is that even the reviews are git based.
> See here for the concepts:
> https://github.com/jensl/critic/blob/master/documentation/concepts.txt
>
> Does anyone have experience with Critic?
>
> To me it seems it can be used a) offline and
> b) mostly without a web interface.
>
>
> It a bit obscure to me, and not super user-friendly. But I have never used
it, it purely based on the website description.



Just for information, I plan to delete the gitlab's rockbox clone. For some
reason, it seems to make gitlab eats all the server's memory (a 'known'
problem it appears). If anyone with Gitlab experience has a solution for
this, I am interested. Otherwise it's clearly a big negative point for
Gitlab for me.

Re: Moving services

[Thomas Jarosch via rockbox-dev]

On Sonntag, 28. Mai 2017 22:00:01 CEST you wrote:
> > And here is the link to Phabricator:
> > http://phabricator.pouly.fr/diffusion/R/
> > 
> > So basically the choice seems to be betwen Gitlab (self-host), Phabricator
> > (self-host) and Github.

one last thing:

cyrus-imapd switched to Phabricator in 2015 and deprecated it in 2016
in favor of github. I don't remember the exact reasons, but we could ask.

github certainly has a big network effect and attracts more drive-by-commits
if people have an account anyway.

Cheers,
Thomas

Re: Moving services

[Thomas Jarosch via rockbox-dev]

Hi Amaury,

On Freitag, 19. Mai 2017 10:10:04 CEST Amaury Pouly via rockbox-dev wrote:
> And here is the link to Phabricator:
> http://phabricator.pouly.fr/diffusion/R/
> 
> So basically the choice seems to be betwen Gitlab (self-host), Phabricator
> (self-host) and Github.

thanks for setting up Phabricator!

I've never used gitlab or Phabricator before and personally the UI of 
Phabricator feels more clean and also the way you can see / browse the changes
of a commit is very intuitive. gitlab looks pretty much like github?

There's another code review system that originated at Opera Software.
It's called "Critic": https://github.com/jensl/critic

The idea is that even the reviews are git based.
See here for the concepts: 
https://github.com/jensl/critic/blob/master/documentation/concepts.txt

Does anyone have experience with Critic?

To me it seems it can be used a) offline and
b) mostly without a web interface.


Should we do a poll once we have the final systems selected?

Cheers,
Thomas

Re: Moving services

[Eduard Kutuev via rockbox-dev]

> So basically the choice seems to be betwen Gitlab (self-host), Phabricator 
> (self-host) and Github.

When it comes to Git, my choice is Github for open source projects and 
Bitbucket for self-hosted repos.

Re: Moving services

[Jacob Mansfield via rockbox-dev]

On 19 May 2017 at 09:10, Amaury Pouly via rockbox-dev <
rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se> wrote:

> So basically the choice seems to be betwen Gitlab (self-host), Phabricator
> (self-host) and Github.
>

What about gitlab.com ?

Just my 2¢, but I administrate a local gitlab server for my day job. I have
to say it's very nice compared to some other stuff out there, particularly
the CI system. I've currently got it set up running automated unit tests
and builds for Windows (C#), Android (Java), and Python programs, and the
only hard part was getting the right commands for the windows stuff. It
also has a rather handy feature of being able to set up isolated
instances/docker containers for each build/branch to do a full review
before merging. As far as I know, it supports all the features we use on
Gerrit, and I'd be happy to lend a hand setting it up or keeping it running.

--
Jacob

Re: Moving services

[Amaury Pouly via rockbox-dev]

>> I don't really have strong opinions on which particular service we use,
>> but having someone volunteer for the actual legwork is a definite bonus.
>>
>>
> It seems relevant to mention that GNOME is thinking about switching to
> Gitlab. They wrong a small comparison between Phabricator and Gitlab here:
> https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/DevelopmentInfrastructure/
> This may provide food for thought.
> Having installing both gitlab and phabricator on my server, I can say that
> both are pretty easy to install.
> In both cases, I can volunteer to do the admin work, and I can give access
> to the server to one or two people to help me, this way we don't end up in
> the current situation.
> If that helps, I cloned rockbox in both my gitlab and phabricator
> instances, so that you can have a feel of what it looks like:
> GitLab: https://gitlab.pouly.fr/pamaury/rockbox-clone
> I'll send the link to phabricator later, because it is still importing the
> repostory.
> NOTE: importing repositories with Phabricator is super slow (it's been
> importing for severall hours now).
>
And here is the link to Phabricator:
http://phabricator.pouly.fr/diffusion/R/

So basically the choice seems to be betwen Gitlab (self-host), Phabricator
(self-host) and Github.

Re: Moving services

[Amaury Pouly via rockbox-dev]

2017-05-05 20:26 GMT+10:00 Frank Gevaerts via rockbox-dev <
rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se>:

> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 07:50:55AM +0200, Thomas Martitz via rockbox-dev
> wrote:
> > I wholeheartedly recommend Phabricator, as both a user and administrator.
> > Github is can't compete with most features and is closed source too. I
> don't
> > know Gitlab really much, but it always looked like a Github clone so it
> > wasn't of interest to me.
> >
> > On Phacility, they can set up a 30 day trial to see how it works.
> Afterwards
> > we can leave Phacility and host Phabricator somewhere, so it's free for
> us.
> > I would volunteer to administer / maintain the instance but I don't own
> > server that is fail-safe or has a backup plan.
>
> OK, I'm still not entirely 100% convinced about self-hosting, but if
> you're willing to do the admin work that makes a big difference.
>
> I don't really have strong opinions on which particular service we use,
> but having someone volunteer for the actual legwork is a definite bonus.
>
>
It seems relevant to mention that GNOME is thinking about switching to
Gitlab. They wrong a small comparison between Phabricator and Gitlab here:
https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/DevelopmentInfrastructure/
This may provide food for thought.
Having installing both gitlab and phabricator on my server, I can say that
both are pretty easy to install.
In both cases, I can volunteer to do the admin work, and I can give access
to the server to one or two people to help me, this way we don't end up in
the current situation.
If that helps, I cloned rockbox in both my gitlab and phabricator
instances, so that you can have a feel of what it looks like:
GitLab: https://gitlab.pouly.fr/pamaury/rockbox-clone
I'll send the link to phabricator later, because it is still importing the
repostory.
NOTE: importing repositories with Phabricator is super slow (it's been
importing for severall hours now).

Re: Moving services

[Frank Gevaerts via rockbox-dev]

On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 07:50:55AM +0200, Thomas Martitz via rockbox-dev wrote:
> I wholeheartedly recommend Phabricator, as both a user and administrator.
> Github is can't compete with most features and is closed source too. I don't
> know Gitlab really much, but it always looked like a Github clone so it
> wasn't of interest to me.
> 
> On Phacility, they can set up a 30 day trial to see how it works. Afterwards
> we can leave Phacility and host Phabricator somewhere, so it's free for us.
> I would volunteer to administer / maintain the instance but I don't own
> server that is fail-safe or has a backup plan.

OK, I'm still not entirely 100% convinced about self-hosting, but if
you're willing to do the admin work that makes a big difference.

I don't really have strong opinions on which particular service we use,
but having someone volunteer for the actual legwork is a definite bonus.

Frank

-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan

Re: Moving services

[Thomas Martitz via rockbox-dev]

Am 20.04.2017 um 14:23 schrieb Björn Stenberg via rockbox-dev:

Hello all patient devs.


Let me make a case for Phabricator, see https://www.phacility.com

We use Phabricator at work for a pretty large code base for about one 
and a half years now, and we truly appreciate it. It offers most (all?) 
of features that we are going to move/replace, and is completely free 
(as in speech and beer).


Foreword: At work, I was searching for a code review systems (just for 
our department). We still use SVN, so git-only systems were not 
qualified. Precisely I looked at Phabricator, ReviewBoard (at that time 
used by KDE), Rietveld and Crucible. Other features, such as Wiki or 
Project Management, were not looked after since we had company-wide 
solutions in place already (though in hindsight, I would argue that 
Phabricator is better than those).


Phabricator came about as the most promising choice and we went for it. 
Since then I also maintain our Phabricator instance, so I also know 
about the internals (how to backup, upgrade, etc.). In the meantime, KDE 
also switched to Phabricator and is pretty happy. I think that a huge 
project as KDE is using it successfully is quite telling.


Phabricator uses itself for ongoing development, so you can have a look 
at Phabricator on their live instance: https://secure.phabricator.com/. 
You'll also see that the development is really active, even though it's 
basically a two-man project.


Phabricator is a commercial project, but it has no commercial edition. 
That means the developers make a business from it, but only by the means 
of paid development for features that go into the open, hosting services 
and consulting. Phabricator itself is fully open source (no open core).


Features:
* Repository hosting including a decent source code browser.
* Excellent code review
* Code auditing (post-commit review)
* Bug tracker
* A Wiki
* Email notifications, for example when someone requests a code review 
for a code area of your interest (can be used to implement subsystem 
maintainership)
* Lots of authentication options, including local username/password, 
google, facebook, amazon, github accounts and more.

* A REST-API for client access (json parsing yay)
* A local tool to interact (so push/pulling doesn't require the web 
interface), the tool uses the above REST Apis.

* Advanced ACL rules (we probably don't need that)
* Methods to run static code analysis and linting as part of the code 
review process.

* Per-user dashboards for tracking activity.
* The modules have cool names, often emphasizing the "Ph"
* Many more that I don't have discovered yet.

Additionally it has simplistic build system support. It doesn't have a 
complete build system solution but it has a module to trigger builds 
externally, wait for completion and retrieve results, which will be 
displayed in the code review or source code browser. This way we can 
support building non-master trees, such as feature branches or 
individual code reviews (this was always on our TODO, right?)


Please go to https://secure.phabricator.com/ and have a look how it 
works in action.


I wholeheartedly recommend Phabricator, as both a user and 
administrator. Github is can't compete with most features and is closed 
source too. I don't know Gitlab really much, but it always looked like a 
Github clone so it wasn't of interest to me.


On Phacility, they can set up a 30 day trial to see how it works. 
Afterwards we can leave Phacility and host Phabricator somewhere, so 
it's free for us. I would volunteer to administer / maintain the 
instance but I don't own server that is fail-safe or has a backup plan.


Best regards

Re: Moving services

[Amaury Pouly via rockbox-dev]

I think we should take a decision and act on it. Currently gerrit is
half-broken and the build system not working. So either we switch or we fix
it.


Amaury

2017-04-25 1:30 GMT+10:00 Mike via rockbox-dev <rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se>:

> I've used both GitHub and gitlab. Both work well enough.  I'm not sure
> what the code review options are like however.
>
> Personally I'm not too attached to gerrit. I found using it relatively
> confusing, but I think it's a good idea to at least have some kind of git
> integrated patch tracker.
>
> Mike
> --
> *From:* rockbox-dev <rockbox-dev-boun...@cool.haxx.se> on behalf of Frank
> Gevaerts via rockbox-dev <rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 24, 2017 2:24:12 AM
> *To:* rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se
> *Cc:* Frank Gevaerts
> *Subject:* Re: Moving services
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:23:40PM +0200, Björn Stenberg via rockbox-dev
> wrote:
> > Hello all patient devs.
> >
> > I'm thinking this might be a good time to grab the bull by the horns and
> do what has needed doing for quite some time: Move parts of our
> infrastructure away from having me as a project bottleneck.
>
> I agree. We need to do something, and I think we need to move to an
> external hosting system. We do not have the manpower to manage our own
> any more. I'm aware of a few hosting providers, which all have
> advantages and disadvantages. I'll list what I can come up with (in no
> particular order). Feel free to add what you know!
>
> Github:
> * "everyone" knows how to use it, a lot of tutorials online
> * Closed source
> * Some people dislike the standard github workflow
>
> Gitlab:
> * Less known than github
> * "Open core". Unclear to me how much of what they run is actually open.
> * Some people dislike the standard gitlab workflow
> * I can't find hosted projects or information about open source hosting
>   on their website. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place, but they
>   seem *heavily* oriented towards selling private instances and not so
>   much towards "community hosting"
> * Not the best reliability track record
>
> Sourceforge:
> * Yes, they still exist, and they do git these days
>
> Launchpad:
> * They do git hosting (https://help.launchpad.net/Code/Git)
> * Even the launchpad home page  (https://launchpad.net/) isn't aware
>   that they do git hosting.
>
> Frank
>
> --
> "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
> Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
> by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan
>

Re: Moving services

[Mike via rockbox-dev]

I've used both GitHub and gitlab. Both work well enough.  I'm not sure what the 
code review options are like however.

Personally I'm not too attached to gerrit. I found using it relatively 
confusing, but I think it's a good idea to at least have some kind of git 
integrated patch tracker.

Mike

From: rockbox-dev <rockbox-dev-boun...@cool.haxx.se> on behalf of Frank 
Gevaerts via rockbox-dev <rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 2:24:12 AM
To: rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se
Cc: Frank Gevaerts
Subject: Re: Moving services

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:23:40PM +0200, Björn Stenberg via rockbox-dev wrote:
> Hello all patient devs.
>
> I'm thinking this might be a good time to grab the bull by the horns and do 
> what has needed doing for quite some time: Move parts of our infrastructure 
> away from having me as a project bottleneck.

I agree. We need to do something, and I think we need to move to an
external hosting system. We do not have the manpower to manage our own
any more. I'm aware of a few hosting providers, which all have
advantages and disadvantages. I'll list what I can come up with (in no
particular order). Feel free to add what you know!

Github:
* "everyone" knows how to use it, a lot of tutorials online
* Closed source
* Some people dislike the standard github workflow

Gitlab:
* Less known than github
* "Open core". Unclear to me how much of what they run is actually open.
* Some people dislike the standard gitlab workflow
* I can't find hosted projects or information about open source hosting
  on their website. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place, but they
  seem *heavily* oriented towards selling private instances and not so
  much towards "community hosting"
* Not the best reliability track record

Sourceforge:
* Yes, they still exist, and they do git these days

Launchpad:
* They do git hosting (https://help.launchpad.net/Code/Git)
* Even the launchpad home page  (https://launchpad.net/) isn't aware
  that they do git hosting.

Frank

--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan

Re: Moving services

[Matthew Kelch via rockbox-dev]

Just to follow up on some of Frank's questions on GitLab:


   - You can find the source code for GitLab CE here. It's not just an
   'open core', the majority of the application is open source::
   https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce
   - Anyone can setup a project on GitLab for free. Simply create an
   account here (https://gitlab.com/users/sign_in). They do offer a managed
   host under the brand 'GitHost': https://githost.io/

I agree that GitHub is the industry standard option open source products,
but I think that GitLab is a superior service.

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:26 AM Frank Gevaerts via rockbox-dev <
rockbox-dev@cool.haxx.se> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:23:40PM +0200, Björn Stenberg via rockbox-dev
> wrote:
> > Hello all patient devs.
> >
> > I'm thinking this might be a good time to grab the bull by the horns and
> do what has needed doing for quite some time: Move parts of our
> infrastructure away from having me as a project bottleneck.
>
> I agree. We need to do something, and I think we need to move to an
> external hosting system. We do not have the manpower to manage our own
> any more. I'm aware of a few hosting providers, which all have
> advantages and disadvantages. I'll list what I can come up with (in no
> particular order). Feel free to add what you know!
>
> Github:
> * "everyone" knows how to use it, a lot of tutorials online
> * Closed source
> * Some people dislike the standard github workflow
>
> Gitlab:
> * Less known than github
> * "Open core". Unclear to me how much of what they run is actually open.
> * Some people dislike the standard gitlab workflow
> * I can't find hosted projects or information about open source hosting
>   on their website. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place, but they
>   seem *heavily* oriented towards selling private instances and not so
>   much towards "community hosting"
> * Not the best reliability track record
>
> Sourceforge:
> * Yes, they still exist, and they do git these days
>
> Launchpad:
> * They do git hosting (https://help.launchpad.net/Code/Git)
> * Even the launchpad home page  (https://launchpad.net/) isn't aware
>   that they do git hosting.
>
> Frank
>
> --
> "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
> Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
> by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan
>
-- 
*Matthew Kelch*
e: kel...@gmail.com
c: 717-814-9595

Re: Moving services

[Frank Gevaerts via rockbox-dev]

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 02:23:40PM +0200, Björn Stenberg via rockbox-dev wrote:
> Hello all patient devs.
> 
> I'm thinking this might be a good time to grab the bull by the horns and do 
> what has needed doing for quite some time: Move parts of our infrastructure 
> away from having me as a project bottleneck.

I agree. We need to do something, and I think we need to move to an
external hosting system. We do not have the manpower to manage our own
any more. I'm aware of a few hosting providers, which all have
advantages and disadvantages. I'll list what I can come up with (in no
particular order). Feel free to add what you know!

Github:
* "everyone" knows how to use it, a lot of tutorials online
* Closed source
* Some people dislike the standard github workflow

Gitlab:
* Less known than github
* "Open core". Unclear to me how much of what they run is actually open.
* Some people dislike the standard gitlab workflow
* I can't find hosted projects or information about open source hosting
  on their website. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place, but they
  seem *heavily* oriented towards selling private instances and not so
  much towards "community hosting"
* Not the best reliability track record

Sourceforge:
* Yes, they still exist, and they do git these days

Launchpad:
* They do git hosting (https://help.launchpad.net/Code/Git)
* Even the launchpad home page  (https://launchpad.net/) isn't aware
  that they do git hosting.

Frank

-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan