Greetings Julian,
On 2019/02/18 14:13:21 Julian Foad wrote:
> Every time I use GitHub I am supporting proprietary software and silo
systems.
>
> Every time I use GitLab I am supporting open source software and open
systems.
>
> I don't see the ASF's values being upheld by encouraging our projects
to use GitHub.
Does the ASF encourage projects to use GitHub?🧐
> To me it's equivalent to encouraging our members and contributors to
use Facebook instead of email for communication. In contrast to when we
first started down this path a few years ago, GitLab now provides a
similar service except it's also Free as in Freedom. By using GitLab, in
addition to supporting FOSS, we would also be able to adapt it to fit
our needs and desires. Use our own hostnames (gitlab.TLP.apache.org).
Integrate with our own user accounts. Own our own data. Our own project
mirroring configurations. With no obligation for infra to host and run
it initially if we prefer gitlab.com or another provider to do so. And
no lock-in to the vendor's policies and charges.
gitlab.com is not “Free as in Freedom”. It is a service, and based on
GitLab EE, which has proprietary elements. A group hosted on gitlab.com
can not necessarily be fully migrated to a self-hosted GitLab CE
instance without complication.
> I strongly believe we should be transitioning to GitLab.
>
> I assume I'm not the only one who thinks so. It would be nice to hear
from others a word of support, or better still anyone wanting to get
started.
You won't see me defending a proprietary service which has no public ITS
like GitHub. But the ASF is not the FSF; while we produce FLOSS, we do
not demonize other economic models. As Rich hinted, choosing a software
product or service involves numerous criteria, which go well beyond
licenses.
Accessibility, for example, can be particularly problematic on a
self-hosted GitLab instance as long as we lack global authentication.
Even on a mature project:
https://code.videolan.org/videolan/vlc/-/work_items/28732#note_528971:~:text=Depending%20on%20the%20period
GitLab has numerous issues. I have not used it that much, yet just from
the list of issues I personally backed, I can see highlights:
* https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/work_items/21316
* https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/work_items/580215
It is also far from even GitHub in terms communication of communication:
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/work_items/15641
GitLab patches that with a Discourse instance: https://forum.gitlab.com/
I see GitLab pretty much like GitHub, a Swiss Army knife which does many
things, but few (if any) well.😞
There are few strictly superior options when it comes to software
choice, and I see GitHub as a (indeed very unfortunate) tradeoff between
numerous priorities. So, what exactly you suggest transitioning should
be clarified, but I sure support if you want to work on the above issues.
On 2019/02/18 14:30:38 Julian Foad wrote:
> Re. "infra": infra is here to create and manage the infra to support
the projects' wants and needs; I am speaking here to the community to
try to influence their wants and needs.
The community's needs won't be influenced by this thread. What you can
do is make projects reconsider their priorities and whether their
current choices align well with these. Still, GitLab and GitHub are not
the only options. Nowadays, if your priority is freedom/independence,
Forgejo would be a better choice than GitLab. But then again, Forgejo is
not without many, many issues…
If you wish to see progress, I would suggest starting by helping these
forges and making a map of which services our projects currently use,
ideally tracking satisfaction in each.
--
🅭🄍:https://www.philippecloutier.com/Common+infrastructure+licensing#list
Philippe Cloutier
