Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
GitLab - an open source clone of GitHub (gitlabhq.com)
228 points by basil on Oct 15, 2011 | hide | past | web | favorite | 63 comments



Funny. Potential GitHub competitor uses GitHub to store its source code [1].

[1] - http://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq


They don't intend to host repositories for you.

Their page clearly says: "All for what you so love github - on your server" and "Keep your source code at your server!"

That said. This project is really neat. It's not everyday that you find opensource projects with decent UI.


> It's not everyday that you find opensource projects with decent UI.

Or closed ones.


It's definitely not trying to be a GitHub competitor. They love GitHub and just want a way for people to store stuff on their own servers as well. I actually use this and have a hook on my GitLab server to push all recieves to GitHub. Distributed VCS are awesome and I'll never lose my code with this method.


Have you ever lost your code before?


Does GitLab/GitHub use git objects to store the issues file? If not, then using this software does in fact significantly increase your likeliness to lose data, since your single server will crash and you only had a local copy of your source code, not your issues.

[edit] I just checked: GitLab stores issues in a database separate from git, therefore unless you have a solid backup plan for those, it will significantly increase the likelihood of you losing data. GitHub stores wiki pages at least as git objects, so when you clone your repository, you have a full backup of all of those.


So, it's just like GitHub except GitHub has wiki's that are stored as Git objects. Or are you saying that GitHub also stores issues in git? I don't understand how this is an argument against GitLab.


GitLab doesn't include support for wiki pages (or I couldn't find it). Comparing apples to apples, I'm focusing on the issue tracker databases. I don't know where GitHub stores this kind of data.

If your team uses GitHub, you're paying a company to reliably store your data, and that's all the company does, and so I'm sure they have RAID0, plus backup drives, plus tape backups. If your team uses GitLab, you're hosting it yourself, so you are responsible for having reliable storage and backups. Obviously, it's infeasible for a tiny startup to have the same level of reliability that GitHub has.

palish's argument is that losing data is unlikely in either scenario. It's true that it's incredibly unlikely for both, but it's far more likely to happen if you roll your own solution. (It's incredibly unlikely that two values hash to one MD5. It's far less likely that two values hash to one SHA1. Either case is very unlikely, but SHA1 is magnitudes better.)


Oh, I thought that might have been your point. I think my point is that it's easy to trivially and even privately replicate git repos to backups.

If you trust only local + gitlab, I would agree, you at are a higher risk than local + github. The point is, gitlab can be every bit as open and accessible as github, as to make it easy to have another account mirror your git repos. GitHub + free BitBucket private repos = cheap + reliable + redundant repos.

I can now have a local gitlab resource that I keep synced with repos in github, almost trivially. bliss


For git data. You also want to backup your mysql database, otherwise all your issue tracker data is stored only in one place. (This is my point, I am apparently unable to properly express it.)


It's not that hard. Just make a script to do regular backups to S3. Cheap and easy. Hell, just run the whole thing on Amazon. Unlimited private repos, reliable uptime & backup, and cheap storage.


No, because I'm so paranoid about backing up everything everywhere I hope I never do. :P


Although it isn't competing with Github's online offerings. I think it would be nice if they both hosted and ran GitLabHQ using their own software. That would be the perfect demo IMO.


This isn't a replacement for GitHub, it's a replacement for the $5000/year self-hosted GitHub.


Or really, for cgit/gitweb/gitorious. There's really no lack of acceptable web front ends for git hosting. Github is prettier and better than those solutions, and I use it. But it's really just incrementally better; simple command line access is 80% of what you need. If this is better than what's available, I'm all for it. But I'm not sure I'd call it particularly innovative.


There's just something about an application that not only performs well, but also doesn't look like a Geocities homepage sprinkled with sendmail.cf, that makes me smile.


For reference, the self-hosted GitHub product is named GitHub:FI (standing for GitHub Firewall Install), and can be found at http://fi.github.com/.


It's replacement for the github paid plans that come with private collaborators and private repos.


Actually, it's not. GitLab is self-hosted; GitHub paid plans are not. The self-hosted version of GitHub costs $5000 per year.


I'm not sure how that makes it not a replacement. Arguably 'externally hosted' is a single feature (or serious drawback) of github, not the defining attribute of their product.

It's also a limitation you can get around by paying them more money, but that doesn't make this position that Gitlab is not competing with github seem any less arbitrary.


Is this doing the same thing as https://gitorious.org/gitorious/ ?


I setup Gitorious for the company that I used to work for, but it did not allow for fine-grained control of access permissions. (Everything is public for members.)


gitorious is for oss projects only, no?


gitorious is open-source, therefore you can run your own instance.


Gitorious is a grueling day long challenge of what feels like a somewhat hacky process to get it installed.


That has been true and still is if you do it manually. There are, however, several scripts assisting you at the install, like this chef cookbook:

https://gitorious.org/chef-cookbooks/chef-gitorious


You should use gitolite, it's a breeze to set up.


They're two entirely different things... this is actually powered by gitolite and looks incredibly easy to setup


Oh, sorry, I was confused by the software that preceded gitolite. Disregard that, thanks.


For what it's worth, we were both wrong and about the same thing. GitLab is powered by Gitosis, rather than Gitolite, though it appears that may be changing. Gitorious is powered by it's own solution I think and is comparable to GitLab/GitHub.


And redmine, trac, etc.

They hosted their code on github, doesn't make much sense to do that IMHO.


Doesn't make sense to open source a Github clone or doesn't make sense to host the code on Github?

If the answer were the former, I'd have to say that many a team use Git internally without being able to host it on a third party service and would benefit from a simple UI to make things easier. If the answer was the later, I'd have to say that any code you intend to share with the community should be hosted on Github and Github only.


That is ironic. This GitLab project couldn't even host itself yet: https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq

Or I could just be wrong, that their goal could simply as if they don't want people to share code with GitLab.


...or that they simply considers github to have a more robust server infrastructure?


...or it is easier to cone github if you actually use github.


Been using gitweb with a custom theme by some dude (https://github.com/kogakure/gitweb-theme). This seems much cleaner and easy to use. When I have some time I'll probably switch over to this if it doesn't have any problems/bugs


Is there any freely available demo site of that theme?


As I have just installed it today, here is one of the repos for the node.js chat app: http://bit.ly/ogzmMk and the live app is at http://chat.cloudno.de


What a great tip. I am running gitweb for the hosted node.js apps on cloudnode. It looks really nice now and is a clean and easy solution.


I like paying for github. They are an important service to me - for open source and private projects, and I want a profitable business to be based on it. I like that they have skin in the game.


Our company gives them money but the main thing is that we have a lot of small private projects that are more like prototypes and will never see the light of day. We are not permitted to open source them and probably wouldn't if we could because they'd be worthless to everyone but us. The pricing plans for additional private repos is pretty steep with github so we had to pay for a crappy repository hosting service to dump all of our second tier projects. GitLab would be pretty neat to allow us to store our second rate stuff on our own servers and the stuff we use every day on github.


Why not use bitbucket.org instead if you have a bunch of small private repositories? They allow for unlimited private repositories, and it has been working quite well for me.


I actually use Assembla's free git repos for client projects and throwaway projects.


So they re-opened that offer? When they closed it I had to endure about six dire e-mails when all I wanted to say was screw you, I've already re-hosted my stuff.


Yep, it's just slightly hidden on the "create repo" page now.


Except github's plans screw companies that have a lot of projects. At my last full time job we had 20-40+ projects at once. The public plans only go up to 20 repos. Most were microsites coming in under 2MB space.


Huh? If you setup the paid plan with an organization it's about $2/month per project. The advertised plans go up to 125 repositories for $200/month.


Can somebody explain what "All for what you so love github" means? My brain is refusing to make sense of that sentence.


Heh, I noticed that too. My guess: a non-native English speaker trying to say "All of what you love about github".


This is a correct translation from Englishrussian :-)


All for what you so love github - on your server!

"Everything you love about github - on your server!"


This was just posted very recently, with comments: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3107417


Thanks for proving this, now I don't have to buy the paid githib repos :) I can use this for free for my own projects (private) and the UI is awesome. One of the best open source projects, how long did it took you all to build this?


> I can use this for free for my own projects (private) and the UI is awesome

This was the first thought that came to my mind! A really awesome project, was much needed.


I've spent my last two weekends on getting Gitolite and GitWeb set up and working well with other tools (cpan mini, Jenkins).

I don't know how often I googled for "Open Source GitHub Clone" and never found this.

Thanks GitLab!


I use http://gitblit.com/ A great open source github clone. 5 second install, also hosted on github.com.


It doesn't work on Chrome 14.0.835.202. Some issue with the tree slider I think.


Am i just blind or do they seriously have no test suite?

It also lacks one of github's most important features: A proper repository+fork graph like this: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10190786/octopus.html


a cool project, but I use github because I don't want to self-host my git repos


it lacks the AJAX


Quite exciting, given what a rainy hill climb gitorious is and the lack of much else.

But: Gitosis?

Unless it's back from the dead, its development has long been abandoned. It works just fine, but the new kid on the block is Gitolite, and it makes far more sense.



Looks great but will it be a pain to use GitHub and GitLab for different projects? I'm not too experienced with Git so I'm hopiing that configuring my machines to connect to GitLab won't screw up what I have with GitHub.




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

Search: