Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Short Gitlab tutorial for curious people (github.com)
101 points by PleaseHelpMe 35 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 48 comments



Eat your own dog food.

Would have more confidence if this was hosted at GitLab rather than GitHub.


So, the idea would be to show gitlab to... people that already use gitlab? I think this way captures a market of people who are familiar with github who want to transition to gitlab. The nature of the guide is such that we're relying on the guide writer to be knowledgeable about gitlab, but by being hosted on github we're also shown they're knowledgeable (enough) about github.


Do people just randomly browse GitHub search for tutorials on how to use GitLab? That makes no sense. I'm pretty sure all the traffic that page is getting will be from news aggregators like HN, or from search engines, both of which don't care where it's hosted. It makes more sense to have it on GitLab so you're actually seeing the features being presented without having to go to a whole other site, and to show the site can handle the traffic / use-case.


Well, then why does it even matter that it's hosted on GitHub? If GitHub is being used as little more than a public hosting page that people will directly link to, then what benefit is there from being on GitLab?

To be more specific about what I was saying earlier: the differences in form factor, features, layout, etc. are all going to be unfamiliar to those who don't know GitLab--so, presenting them a migration guide to GitLab from GitHub that's also already hosted on GitHub, with the layout and all the features they're already familiar with, is going to have a higher conversion factor than otherwise. It's not necessary that they randomly browse to this guide. Guides work because there's a smooth transition between the easy/familiar and the objective. By starting on the familiar, the guide is more inviting to follow.


I guess I can see it both ways, but in my mind, if GitLab's UI is too confusing for a new user to even navigate, then maybe it isn't good enough to migrate to. I do agree that familiarity with GitHub helps, but by that logic, a normal blog (maybe on Medium) would've been even better. The fact that it's formatted as a git repo (which is honestly sub-optimal for a tutorial), yet not hosted on GitLab, just felt strange.


If the guide is on Gitlab, then you're in the Gitlab interface and immediately click around and open new tabs of the different things.


The README page should be obvious to any user, regardless of background. Sorry, but your argument doesn't make much sense.


My argument isn't that the README won't be easily readable between git interfaces. My argument is mostly a) I expect that conversion rates will be higher going from GH -> GL if the guide is hosted on GH, and b) the guide is already hosted on GH, so, therefore c) you'll need a much better reason than a specious argument about dogfooding to compel a change.

I mean, it's just a git directory with a README.md--it's not like it can't be both places, but the argument from dogfooding I don't think is a good one.


Getting the word out is what the HN post is for. That's orthogonal to where the content is hosted. In addition to the confidence comment, I think it's kind of shitty.


Agreed and now all the discussion on HN is about _where_ it's hosted, instead of the content itself. It's the first thing everyone noticed. My guess is they did this on purpose just to generate controversy


GitLab do all their development in the open on their own platform (https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce), I think there is enough dog food being eaten.

It doesn't make much sense to put a thing for people who don't use GitLab on the thing they don't use.


This was obviously made on purpose. Hosting a readme isn't really a testament to 'eating your own dog food' anyway.

What remains is whether you appreciate the PR stunt (using a competitor to market yourself), which is another issue entirely.


> What remains is whether you appreciate the PR stunt (using a competitor to market yourself), which is another issue entirely.

To quote from that readme: "Secondly, I am not affiliated with Gitlab."


Thanks, I had missed that.


Thank you for understanding ;)


Possible reasons to post it on Github: 272 followers and better search engine performance.


Came here to say the same thing. I already have moved a project over to GitLab so it feels like the same thing (but open source, and I can self host). But if the above was hosted on Gitlab people would see it has the same features (and private repos and free DevOps integration on a shared server).


The third paragraph:

> Secondly, I am not affiliated with Gitlab.

So this would be no “own” dog food at all.


The author explicitly writes:

> Secondly, I am not affiliated with Gitlab.


Confidence in what? The accuracy of the article?


Confidence in GitLab.


Upvoted because of the irony that OP hosted this on GitHub. Good fun :-D


I don't see the irony. If there is a group of people you want to talk to, you go where they are.


Just pointing out something that made me smile. I suppose any time someone is marketing or building a new/underdog platform, some ironic elements will be present. Like Stallman using Unix machines to develop the GNU toolchain. :-)


I understand why people make fun of this. It is obviously ironic. But I am happy most of the comments replying to yours speak out my intent. I neither "accidentally" put it on Github, nor make use of Github unethically to promote Gitlab.


Here is a PowerPoint about how to use Keynote.


That makes perfect sense for getting extant Powerpoint users to consider moving to Keynote.


It's nice that I can move to Gitlab, more competition is great and all. But at the end of the day right now i'm perfectly happy with Github.


Ditto. I use Github because of the network effect and I don't have the time or desire to try something else. If I have a problem I will switch. I'm not losing sleep over anything.


At GitLab, the UI and UX is not as good, but the unlimited private projects is a win for me.


They actively develop such things in the open (and are working on improving it in many ways). You can leave issues and comments on their public repo.


The UI and UX to me (the author of this guide) is something that I can get used to. I leave it for the reader to decide which one they feel comfortable, I don't want to force anyone to use something they don't like. My whole purpose is to introduce what Gitlab has got and presenting them on Github.


Unlimited private repos without paying?

If you're paying didn't GitHub switch up their payed plans a few years ago to allow for unlimited private repos rather than the 12 max then pay for more?


Yes. You now pay for users. Still a little annoying that there are no private repository on the free tier, as I'd like to move things over from bitbucket, but understandable given that less repositories would be open if they allowed it.


That PR/MR icon is quite terrible, I much prefer github's which actually communicates the idea clearly and abstractly and is uniquely recognisable. This other one is just two squares, it could really mean anything.


Actually, the guide is wrong. That icon is the issue icon. The PR/MR icon is the same: https://i.imgur.com/quxgP81.png


Ah ha! that is much better and I see no reason why any git platform couldn't use the same icon concept, it's a good one.

Issues are kind of an intentionally vague concept I guess though... they aren't necessarily bugs.


My bad. I captured the wrong icon. I fixed that in the latest commit.


That is fair, I'd say the same thing about "Pull Request" as a name when compared to "Merge Request" though - it's so counter-intuitive to people new to the process.

Can we get "Merge Request" with the GitHub icon?


It looks like that icon is not part of a public icon library, but the concept of an arrow joining one node to another node in a graph does not belong to github, it just needs an originally drawn icon is all.


Whether you're affiliated with Gitlab or not, it's kind of shitty to use someone's platform to push a competitor. Nothing in the terms of service forbids it of course and you're absolutely free to do so, but it just feels more ethical and grown up to extoll Gitlab's virtues by using Gitlab to host the content and link to it from HN. Putting it on Github is at least a tacit implication of its superiority along some axis, which—to my eye anyway—undermines your message.


Is it wrong to use google to get to duckduckgo? I would describe this situation as ironic but fail to see how ethics come into question. We have no such obligation to the products we use.


Can you draft an essay about Linux in Microsoft Word? Can you install Firefox using Microsoft Edge?


> it's kind of shitty to use someone's platform to push a competitor

I am sorry you felt that way. But to be honest, I don't feel that this is bad. I myself don't tell people to abandon Github and move to Gitlab. I just write a small guide to instruct people and whom I targeted happens to use Github a lot, so I put it there. Just that. And if you look carefully, I am a heavy Github user and I didn't stop or fully migrated from Github to Gitlab. I did not criticize anything about Github in the guide, also.


I love Gitlab features, but the down itme is really a downer for us. Used the self hosted free version at previous work for 2 years, was sufficient for most use cases for 50 people.


I would love to see a sharing about your own experience. I never got the chance to run it the self-hosted way.


It's like a Microsoft Word document on how to use Google Docs.


That makes perfect sense for getting extant MS Word users to consider moving to Google Docs.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: