
GitLab 12.5 - bjoko
https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2019/11/22/gitlab-12-5-released/
======
chbrosso
I've struggled to understand how the ultimate plan can be priced as high as
$99/user/month. What kind of company can afford this service price?

It's the only way to have access to epics, a feature quite standard for Ajile
project management. As a result, we're sticking to the Community Edition, so
it's a loss of business for GitLab.

~~~
base698
GitHub enterprise is much higher and doesn't even include CI/CD. In addition
other CI tools I've seen quoted in the $300/seat range.

Gitlab is a steal at a $99 price point compared to other tools.

~~~
stateofnounion
what? github enterprise is 1/5 that cost. and what about github actions? they
provide 50k minutes/month for enterprise
[https://github.com/features/actions](https://github.com/features/actions)

~~~
rumanator
To be fair, GitHub Actions is a relatively new thing and I'm not even sure it
was already opened to the general public (that is, to anyone who didn't signed
up for the beta). It's understandable if GitHub Actions isn't yet a part of
the general public's mental landscape.

------
this_was_posted
I am wondering when merge approvals will come to the community edition. To me
this seems like a feature that is "essential to running a large 'forge' with
public and private repositories". This would mean that it should be made
available to the community edition according to their stewardship page[0].

[0]
[https://about.gitlab.com/company/stewardship/](https://about.gitlab.com/company/stewardship/)

~~~
samanthalee233
GitLab community advocate chiming in, I just wanted to share a n Epic with
plans from our team regarding this issue and future releases.
[https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-
org/-/epics/1887](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/1887)

------
chinhodado
Can't wait to try out the Sourcegraph integration, as well as the improved
rebase. At our place the rebase button on GitLab is so slow that no one uses
it.

------
new_realist
Every release of GitLab is not newsworthy. Let interested parties sign up for
email notifications.

~~~
echelon
They're a YCombinator company and get the benefit of extra coverage. Stripe is
another company with a constant stream of product announcements on HN.

I've wondered if applying to Ycombinator might be valuable simply for the
ability to advertise to and recruit engineers.

------
martingxx
I really like that there is a focus on being able to deploy in k8s. Nice work!

However, some teams (ours) already run their own k8s clusters and would
probably want to deploy gitlab in a namespace in there.

I hoped there would be simple example k8s manifests for doing this, but last
time I checked I could only find helm charts. We don't use helm and don't want
to use it.

If anyone knows some k8s manifests I can cut and paste to get started I'd
appreciate it. Otherwise, it's going be be a job of creating it all myself,
which right now is what's stopping us evaluating gitlab properly.

~~~
mbell
Helm charts are just templated k8s manifests, you can have it spit out the
final manifest and use it manually.

~~~
martingxx
Thanks. Maybe I will try that.

------
nefasti
I’ve set up teamcity, Jenkins, CircleCI for past projects and companies. Tried
to use gitlab with all their built-in DevOps feature and found it extremely
frustrating to get to a good setup.

I dig the idea of all in one but think it really needs some polishing

~~~
throwaway5752
I am glad you said it. Right now, the setup is so opinionated that it's
limited and suffers from the mile wide and inch deep problem. In particular,
they are still behind the Jenkins default setup in terms of standardized xunit
output parsing, tracking and visualizing test trends over time - and since
they have all the git topology information at their disposal there are amazing
possibilities there and its a real shame. They are light years away from large
scale project management capabilities of JIRA + plugins and I wish they would
improve the core source control + build pipeline experience before tackling
that space.

------
eddyg
How does Sourcegraph's pricing [0] come in to play with self-hosted, paid
GitLab plans?

For example, if you pay for GitLab's self-managed "Starter" package, and
assuming you spin up your own private Sourcegraph instance [1] to go along
with your self-managed GitLab instance, what Sourcegraph features do you get?
Will you get code review intelligence, which Sourcegraph charges
$29/user/month for?

On Sourcegraph's pricing page, it says the open-source edition is missing
features like "Single repository definitions and references" and "Cross-
repository definitions and references". What does that mean for private GitLab
instances?

[0]
[https://about.sourcegraph.com/pricing/](https://about.sourcegraph.com/pricing/)

[1]
[https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph](https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph)

~~~
beliu
Sourcegraph CTO here.

> For example, if you pay for GitLab's self-managed "Starter" package, and
> assuming you spin up your own private Sourcegraph instance [1] to go along
> with your self-managed GitLab instance, what Sourcegraph features do you
> get? Will you get code review intelligence, which Sourcegraph charges
> $29/user/month for?

The GitLab pricing tier has no bearing on Sourcegraph features—it is the
Sourcegraph pricing tier that determines what Sourcegraph features are
available. $29/user/month is the Sourcegraph Enterprise tier, which includes
full code review intelligence (jump-to-def, find-refs, hover tooltips).

Note also that Sourcegraph customers are only charged for _active_ users, so
if most of your team doesn't end up using the features provided by
Sourcegraph, you aren't charged for them.

> On Sourcegraph's pricing page, it says the open-source edition is missing
> features like "Single repository definitions and references" and "Cross-
> repository definitions and references". What does that mean for private
> GitLab instances?

"Single repository definitions and references" means go-to-def and find-refs
work if the code you're trying to jump to is in the same repository. "Cross
repository" means you can jump through to code in upstream and downstream
dependencies.

If you're running a private GitLab instance, you'll need to deploy a
Sourcegraph instance (runnable as either a single Docker image or Kubernetes
cluster) and pay for the appropriate license (free if you're under 10 active
users and just want single-repository code intelligence, $29/user/month if
you're over 10 active users or want cross-repo code intelligence).

Sorry about the confusion here—does that answer your questions?

~~~
eddyg
Yes, that makes things very clear!

The only confusing thing is that the open-source version doesn't even have
"Single repository definitions and references" code intelligence? Trying to
understand what would be gained by spinning up a Sourcegraph instance. What
extra functionality does that bring to GitLab if you're already paying for a
self-managed GitLab instance and thus already have cross-repository search,
indexed search, etc. (provided via GitLab)?

Thanks very much for taking the time to spell it out.

------
kitsuac
I ran my own personal GitLab EE on EC2 and it cost a fortune per year to use
an instance type with enough memory. Then I realized GitLab.com private is...
free and unlimited? How is that even possible?

~~~
brodock
When on the private, free, you get the features of the unlicensed EE (which
behaves as the opensource version).

You can still pay us money if you want, by going with one of the paid tiers,
which gives you access to other features and additional CI minutes.

But "free GitLab" is, really, good enough for personal use and small / medium
companies when they are starting their digital transformation, or can afford
to some manual inefficiencies.

The extra features on the paid tier become more important and urgent as you
grow, so by having you already familiar and invested in the product, it
becomes more obvious and easier the choice of becoming a paid customer.

------
systemdtrigger
Sourcegraph is the same company that hijacked the langserver.org domain to
almost completely remove credit for the original author of language server
protocol.

Not a good team to be on.

