Ok.... On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:27 PM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 5, 2015, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > But, during my last 2-3 year absence, has the GitLab[1] option been > > > discussed and/or tried? GitLab is open sourced, can run on our infra > and > > > has many of the essential features of Github. > > > But perhaps people are satisfied enough with the Github mirroring that > is > > > already in place, but with GitLab in house, we could (in theory) add > > > features around licensing (like ICLA style assurance, similar to Jira), > > and > > > non-committers could(!) be allowed a direct route to the horse's > mouth... > > > > Here's the way I look at it: the power of github.com comes not so much > > from the > > web UI or even API, but from a network effect. It is where developers > > congregate. > > Thus we'd have to have mirrors of our stuff there anyway to enable PR > > workflow > > for projects that care about it. And as long as THAT is in place, the > > need for something > > like GL is reduced, IMHO. > > > I believe the mirrors are enough for PR workflow, and I personally like the > clear borderline. The mirror is read only but you can still submit > patches.... become a committer and get access to the "real thing". Building > a GITASF extra to what we already have would just add complexity without > giving real advantages. > > That said a lot of projects have their own vm(s) and other can normally get > one if requested, so nothing stops a project from providing gitlabs. > > rgds > jan i > > > > > Thanks, > > Roman. > > > > > -- > Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings. > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
