Interested in Gitlab for Fedora Hosted Projects | GSoC 2013

[Ranjib Dey]

I share the same concerns. We had similar experience with gitorious too.
And we ended up maintaining our forks. Gitlab shares even more features
with github than gitorious. I suspect its going to be a high maintainance
deployment.

Also withe current trend in rubygem packaging its becoming increasingly
difficult to maintain shared pool of rubygems across apps. One pattern many
app followed is to create omnibus installer (sensu, chef et al) which
bundles everything above glibc. But i wont recomnend that for fedora.
On Apr 12, 2013 6:35 AM, "seth vidal" <skvidal at fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:47:21 +0200
> Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ankur,
> >
> > Since GitLab is Ruby on Rails application and the first step is to
> > package it and all its dependencies for Fedora, I recommend you to
> > join the Ruby-SIG ML, where is already ongoing discussion about it.
> >
>
> Seems to me the first step is to see if maintaining it and deploying it
> is actually what we want - which it is not at all clear it is anymore.
>
> Upstream gitlab devel is pretty negative on public browseability of the
> trees. They won't even accept patches to do it. Also - if you read
> their tickets there seems to be some other issue with that.
>
> Finally, I am concerned that gitlab looking similar to github is a
> liability. Due to the visual similarity many folks will be expecting
> some kind of feature parity and it is safe to say that gitlab is very,
> very far from that and they don't even seem interested in pursuing it.
>
> That's concerning.
>
> -sv
> _______________________________________________
> infrastructure mailing list
> infrastructure at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20130412/65100dc8/attachment.html>