If we would not have shipped new features and still did just just version control GitLab the company would not be viable. We're committed to shipping a single application for the whole DevOps lifecycle this year https://about.gitlab.com/2017/10/11/from-dev-to-devops/
But there are multiple performance tweaks en bugfixes going out every month, including this one.
The big performance tweak in this release is the merge request view refactor https://about.gitlab.com/2018/07/22/gitlab-11-1-released/#me... which makes loading merge requests much faster but there are 35 other performance improvements https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/merge_requests?scope=...
There were 141 bugs closed in this release https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/issues?scope=all&utf8...
Keep your fingers on the pulse of your customers. If the top comments in posts about your releases say "I wish they'd focus on quality more" even in a place where 'move fast and break things' is considered sage advice, then think of this as an indicator. If the performance improvements that have been going out every month are sufficient, the discussion would not focus on them as much.
> If we would not have shipped new features and still did just just version control GitLab the company would not be viable.
Says who? I can name hundreds of enterprise software companies that don't ship new features on a regular basis and are still commercially very viable. In other words, what evidence do you have that if you spent 3 months just shipping performance improvements that it would slow your growth?
And it's a very good thing that their product allows you to self-host, because I have zero-confidence in their ability to properly operate infrastructure.
But the attention to detail/quality on the product itself is lacking too. Don't get me wrong, I love gitlab as a product, but they really don't seem to care about working on anything that doesn't let them check another box on a marketing feature sheet.
A selection of some issue I've filed...
Only took around a year to fix: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/25388
Then this issue lingered for about a year before being closed because a customer filed a similar issue a couple months after I did... that other issue is still open though, so maybe they'll get around to it eventually: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/25535
Here's one from two years ago that's still open: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/19846
It's possible that issue is actually fixed now. I don't know and I don't care anymore.
Here another issue from 2 years ago: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/19656
I filed that issue after a Gitlab person here on hacker news specifically invited feedback on UX/UI issues, and I had just spent a frustrating time trying to track down a runner.
At some point I just stopped filing issues & started ignoring the issues I'd already filed. The times they decided to close issues because they'd been open a long time certainly didn't inspire me to waste any more time trying to help them improve the product.
Closing & re-opening and re-tagging and doing everything but actually fixing the issue is not confidence inspiring.
Gitlab is still a great product, but now when I run into things that might warrant opening an issue, I just find ways of dealing with them on my own.
I cannot believe its not fixed it. They made the MR file view completely useless for us. It was a new "feature" that actually made things worse.
Normally new duplicate issues are consolidated into the oldest issue, but since both issues had been open a while ago I kept the issue that had the most participants and discussion open.
1. We consider stopping an environment https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/25388 a new feature, not a bug.
2. Relative submodule links are planned for 11.3 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/37356
3. Not showing a retry option to logged out users https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/19846 is a good improvement but since very few logged out users will see this message we don't consider it a bug.
4. Showing the original project next to the runner IDs makes a lot of sense. As you can see in the issue we are no longer closing feature proposals due to inactivity.
If you find ways of dealing with above things on your own that involve modifying GitLab please consider contributing them back.
Thanks!
Edit: I wanted to clarify that if you’ve observed any undesirable behavior, we welcome you to log it and we will address it as soon as we can. I see how my original comment made it seem like we ship untested code. That’s not the case as Sid mentioned below. That being said, there might be specific edge cases or scenarios we have not captured in our tests. So problems do appear from time to time. So I wanted to invite anybody to log any problem so that we can reproduce it as soon as we can and get it fixed.
Also as Sid mentioned, this feature was recently brought to Core so that more users now have access to it.
I recently move to gittea[1] for the very reason that I dont need 90%+ of Gitlabs features. Also Gitlab chews up RAM and IO, while gittea is barely noticeable even on a low end server. [1] https://gitea.io/
For example, recently the number of characters before line-wraps in the MR diff view changed. Not sure if this was intentional or accidental. I know two companies using Gitlab, both based the max-line length in their style-guide on what fit the diff-viewer. I guess Gitlab became a worse tool for code-reviews for them with that change.
"You need to optimize for the people not using your product yet because it is missing features." doesn't sound very fair to current users, and I don't think that will work long term.
@gitlab It would be awesome if you would split out GitLab-CI into something you can host separately as a direct competitor to Jenkins. Or maybe a stripped down "lite" version that could be hosted on small vps's. I know that doesn't fit your overall vision, or really help your bottom line, but it would help a lot of individuals and small organizations that need to self host for some reason (as in, there's a reason they can't use GitLab.com).
I understand the need to have GitLab use less memory, I commented in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17588073 about our plans.
BTW If you want to use just GitLab CI and are a current GitHub customer you can do that https://about.gitlab.com/features/github/
Today is exactly one month after Gitlab 11.0 release.
It seems Gitlab is finally on Rails 5.0, hopefully they move to Rails 5.2 soon. It seems the whole Rails Ecosystem, Shopify, Zendesk, Gitlab, AirBnb, Discourse is now catching up to the latest release.
This may seem subjective, and it certainly is to some extent, but I've used both platforms pretty extensively and I find GitHub's UX so much cleaner and more usable every time.
So this is subjective.
(Personally I find it a lifesaver)
Now if they could implement branch-specific secrets so I could manage ACLs amongst devs, senior devs, ops etc. then it would be near-perfect.
What this means is that so long as I or another trusted person reviews the PR of a protected branch build, we can have high confidence the code isn't going to disclose secrets unintentionally, and that people aren't going to accidentally modify a build so it deploys outside the process.
This is great! But what I want is for it to go further - in a perfect system, I'd be able to set per-branch variables which are omitted if you're not on the right branch, and have branch protection managed by different sets of users - i.e. developers, lead developers, then testing/QA/UAT and finally production - which could just correspond to branch rules like uat/<whatever> preprod/<whatever> prod/<whatever> and allow PRs with different approvers to control the escalation process.
I currently use Core for free and going from $0 to $100k seems pretty steep for a fairly simple feature that Github has partially implemented in their free tier.
I’d like some way to use it manually as a low cost project and then pay for convenience.
There’s a group in my org looking at MicroFocus at $1200/build seat.
If you have any other plan (including Free), you should not see that field (or at most you should see a dismissable upgrade UI). That doesn’t seem to be case currently. I’ve logged an issue to correct this. [2]
Github-wide search is great! I wish Gitlab had something like that. That's one of the things that's stopping me from switching 100% to Gitlab.
The site-wide search on GitHub allows me to explore code snippets, learn how someone else uses the "foo" syntax, see the trending repos in a given language, and so much more.
Typo? Should it be "now"?