
Xcode 10 is now integrated with GitLab - faltad
https://twitter.com/gitlab/status/1003764673454342144
======
benatkin
I'm impressed how far GitLab has come in a short amount of time. It's a pretty
well-designed platform, when it comes down to it. I think the Vue-based user
interface and the data model are probably the cornerstones of it, and using
Ruby on the backend just helps them iterate quickly. Ruby also seems to be
getting more robust [1]. Their CI/CD platform is really a great approach,
emphasizing the GitLab Worker as a portable CI runner that communicates
through the API. For resource-intensive apps it helps to not have the number
and size of CI workers be limited by a SaaS plan like they tend to be with
other CI/CD platforms.

[1] [https://githubengineering.com/removing-
oobgc/](https://githubengineering.com/removing-oobgc/)

~~~
specialist
Builds should just be done with shell scripts.

I recently crossed swords with .gitlab-ci.yml. An obfuscation layer that
fights back.

Ditto jenkinsfile and whatever you wanna call GoCD's config.xml.

This silliness reminds me most of all those ETL workflow obfuscation
frameworks, like BizTalk and TalenD.

PS- If anyone has the bad judgement to use YAML, it'd be nice if the linter
reported something more specific than "syntax error line 1 char 1" for deeply
buried typos. I thought XML sucked until I met JSON. I thought JSON sucked
until I met YAML. What's next? The resurrection of ASN.1?

PS2- It's not programming if you can't set a break point. The edit, eval,
fail, profanity loop for troubleshooting .gitlab-ci.yml is pretty intense.

~~~
Matt3o12_
But how do you tell a spell script to be a multi staged build? You can't just
write `set OS=macos` and suddenly your OS changes from debian to macos. The
best you could do is to ssh into that machine but how do you tell your build
system to provision a machine with such parameters? You would essential have
to build a new build system just for that. Or you could just use a config file
-- whether you call it config.ini, .gitlab-ci.yaml, or build.json should not
matter. Furthermore, how would you execute a bash script on Windows? You would
have to at least tell it to enable Linux Subsystem and make sure it is a Pro
version.

I personally don't like to have a whole shell script inside .gitlab-ci.yaml
file either -- that's why I have a seperate script called
setup.bash/build.bash inside a CI folder and juse write `script:
./ci/build.bash` inside gitlab-ci.yaml. But nobody ever told you, you cannot
do that. The gitlab-ci.yml is just a configuration file for the build system
to tell it what you want your environment(s) to be.

I agree that error reporting for YAML files suck -- but at least they are more
consistent and easier to parse then XML files. And they are also way more
readable then JSON files -- they have essential features such as long strings,
and comments. The only annoying thing with Gitlab CI (and any other CI system)
is to make sure it works. It often takes me 10 tries to make sure everything
works correctly.

~~~
specialist
Multi-stage? I dunno. Simplify your workflow?

 _" just write `script: ./ci/build.bash` inside gitlab-ci.yaml"_

Yup. Then why have the YAML?

I said shell script, not bash. The first "CI/CD" (as the kids now call it) I
ever did was on Windows. Worked great.

~~~
Matt3o12_
> Multi-stage? I dunno. Simplify your workflow?

How would you simplify testing on multiple systems/oses? Or have one project
written be tested for multiple versions of that language (because you need
backwards compatibility)? It's nice if your build system is as simple as

    
    
        make build test publish
    

and only need to have it work on a Linux distribution of your choice, but some
many projects, that's just not enough. Your .gitlab-ci file is just a file to
tell your build system: for debian-python3.{3,4,5,6} execute that, for
windows: do that. Btw: debian-python:devel is allowed to fail because it is
not stable. It's just nice to have an idea if it might work for further
versions.

~~~
specialist
I can't comment directly, obviously. All I have is my faith (irrational
belief) that we can reengineer our workflows to ease our own suffering.

I used to create prepress (print manufacturing) software for Mac (old and new)
& Windows. Multi platform, multi executables, multi language, multi target
builds. It'd pull all the resource bundles (L10N/I18N), recreate the the
screen shots, rebuild the PDFs (manuals, marcom). The QA box farm would rerun
all the regressions (combo of VirtualPC and VMware boxes) on multiple versions
of multiple OSes (eg Japanese Windows) with all the necessary drivers (eg
security dongles, which totally sucked). We'd end up with CD images and
downloadable zips on our private website for VARs and high end customers.

Seemed to work pretty good.

I used to do a lot of electronic medical records stuff. My team (of 4 core
devs) supported five regional exchanges (the first to market), 80 hospitals
plus all their partners, pharma scripts, labs (internal and external), feeds
to the govt (eg CDC, SSI). Basically 100s of data feeds of every mutant format
and protocol imaginable. At the time, all of the data had to be stored on each
customer's servers. Meaning we had to deploy and support in situ. Meaning
firewalls, reverse SSH, forklifting files into place, whatever was permitted.
We did multiple builds per week. Most deploys were push. Some we had to setup
as pulls. We implemented auto updates, but never had the QA/Test resources to
achieve the necessary confidence, which was a shame.

Seemed to work pretty good.

Sure, today's cloud deploys are complicated in other ways. But the more stuff
changes, the more it all looks the same.

PS- Rereading your comment... Maybe consider changing some of the steps from
push to pull. I was super inspired by the architecture of postfix (email
server). Trying to mimick it simplified a lot of my own efforts.

------
mideaster
Apple started using GitLab internally after switching off of GHE years ago.
Not surprised at all by this

~~~
kristianp
GitHub Enterprise (GHE)?

~~~
satbyy
Yes

~~~
DeepYogurt
[https://enterprise.github.com/home](https://enterprise.github.com/home)

------
coding123
Our team loves Gitlab. We have had a bunch of slow responses today. Also lots
of CI/CD glitches yesterday and today... but we recognize this is just due to
the exodus so we know it will go back to normal - we're just laughing about it
a bit.

~~~
sytse
Yep, it was busy and we had to scale up but we're on top of it now. Thanks for
your patience!
[https://twitter.com/mdelaossa/status/1003805667394834432](https://twitter.com/mdelaossa/status/1003805667394834432)

~~~
ulkesh
Sorry, but you really aren't, quite yet. I'm trying to import a very small
repo from github (literally 1 branch and 2 files with hardly any revisions and
no issues) and it's still sitting there showing "Starting...". I had tried to
mass import a lot and after 11+ hours of "Starting..." I decided to remove
them and just try one at a time. Still no luck after almost 20 minutes.

~~~
cevn
just push them up with git...?

------
pritambaral
This tweet is, unsurprisingly, too light on details. I wonder what the plus
for Xcode is here? I'm sure it already had Git integration. Is Xcode getting
project, issue, merge-request etc. management support? And they chose to start
that with (or exclusively base it on) GitLab?

~~~
benatkin
Maybe they had a slide for GitHub and they deleted it in light of the
Microsoft announcement. Apple is one of very few companies secretive enough to
be able to do something like that.

~~~
foobarbazetc
It supports GitHub, BitBucket and GitLab.

It’s not very useful though. It just lets you clone repos without using a
shell. Kind of pointless.

~~~
Apocryphon
Why highlight GitLab and not Bitbucket, then? Is someone else cozying up to
Atlassian?

~~~
george_perez
The slide where it was announced showed both GitLab and Bitbucket. GitHub was
already there since Xcode 9 from last June.

------
stiGGG
I've just imported some of my open source projects from GitHub to GitLab, not
because I'm in panic mode due to MS, but because i wanted to try out GitLab
again already for some time. I've used it once 2-3 years ago for a short time
in a self-hosted version in a client project, and was mostly unhappy with it's
perfomance. I thought it was mainly because it was running on very slow
hardware, but the gitlab.com version now feels even slower. Is this because
they have currently big problems with unexpected increase of users or is this
normal?

~~~
deerpig
Gitlab requires a lot of resources. We have a local Openstack cluster and were
running GitLab on a small instance. It was a beast. Moved to a larger instance
and it works beautifully even over the Internet from another ISP.

------
reificator
That's some impressive timing for that announcement.

~~~
sytse
Yes, total coincidence. Although many mergers get announced after the weekend.

------
dewiz
Microsoft and Apple in the news about Git*. I’m waiting for Google and Amazon
to announce something too.

~~~
kyrra
Google already has this: [https://cloud.google.com/source-
repositories/](https://cloud.google.com/source-repositories/)

I believe Amazon has something similar.

~~~
pier25
Huh.

Does Google also have an issue tracker?

~~~
kyrra
They have a couple, neither are usable by Cloud customers. I believe the git
integration is for Stackdriver Debugger (debug stuff in prod with viewing
source), and container builder[0].

As for issue trackers, there is the chromium one that is based off of the old
Google code issue tracker [1]. And about a year ago they started exposing a
newer issue tracker[2].

[0] [https://cloud.google.com/container-
builder/](https://cloud.google.com/container-builder/)

[1] [https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-
zero/issues/list](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/list)

[2]
[https://issuetracker.google.com/issues?q=status:open](https://issuetracker.google.com/issues?q=status:open)

------
PakG1
Is GitLab profitable, or will it face the same issues GitHub did and also need
to find a sugar daddy? If so, can see Apple getting on this eventually.

~~~
sytse
We took external investment so we need to either get acquired or IPO. Since
2015 we're aiming for an IPO in 2020
[https://about.gitlab.com/strategy/](https://about.gitlab.com/strategy/) and
so far we're on track.

~~~
mandeepj
Or maybe, you could become profitable organically in the future. Today, might
go down as a turning point in your history

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
Call me cynical, but the goal of startups is not to become organically
profitable. It's something extremely hard to do anyway, especially in the
developer space nowadays where everyone expects everything to be fee.

------
to_bpr
Big congrats to GitLab on the day they're having.

~~~
sytse
Thank you. This is the most insane day in our history. Cheers!

------
root_axis
I hate xcode, it's the most frustrating part of my job. I like gitlab though!

~~~
chadcmulligan
have you tried appcode? its superior to Xcode, except for nib's back to Xcode
for them

------
zer00eyz
Well that was fast.

Kidding asside is any one surprised? With the way the Vally rumor mill works
its shocking when things manage to stay secret.

~~~
george_perez
You're misunderstanding this. They added GitLab and Bitbucket in Xcode 10, but
Xcode 9 already had GitHub integration. These two are being added in addition
to GitHub.

~~~
ry_ry
The timing of the announcement _is_ a little serendipitous though.

I don't know if i'd go so far as to call it a tacit endorsement of gitlab by
Apple, but it does have an air of opportunism.

~~~
Matt3o12_
Apple probably planned that long before the announcement of Microsoft's
acquisition was made because a lot of customers requested gitlab/bitbucket
integration after they added the github integration. But they could only tell
that they public after they released xcode 10 at the WWDC yesterday. It was
just unfortunate that the WWDC and the announcement were within ~24h.

~~~
jschumacher
That's right. We planned the announcement from the Bitbucket side weeks ahead.

------
TickleSteve
...countdown to Apple acquiring GitLab??

~~~
akerro
Apple has no cloud service and no cloud tools to offer, it makes no sense for
them to buy GitLab. But, still, it woudln't be a bad thing. Apple is much more
open-source company than microsoft, doesn't have decades of history fighting
OSS and spreading FUD and stealing code from open source without acknowledging
real ownership. I'm sure that would be seen more positively than MS buying GH.

~~~
mytydev
Really? Not sure you've been paying attention. That may have been true in the
past and I'm not saying Apple isn't OSS friendly, but the sheer amount of
Microsoft code on Github would beg to differ.

------
_Codemonkeyism
Microsoft buying Github opens many possibilities for competitors.

