Thanks for creating Gitlab. It helped us a lot internally. We were using plain Gitosis before. Now nobody gives a hoot about that anymore :)
My only request would be to focus more on stability. We run it for 1 year now and there were many problems with upgrades and various changing issues with the different versions.
So for us less new features but a better tested Gitlab would be great. Maybe some kind of "stable" release? Not sure...
Hi binderbizingdos, GitLab.com co-founder here. I'm glad to hear GitLab meets your needs. We know some upgrades have been painful, especially to 5.0 where Gitolite was removed. Since then we try to have smoother upgrades with complete documentation. Of course we can't avoid deprecation in major releases to move things forward. Each release is stable but if you want to be extra careful upgrade two weeks after release. But please let us know if there is anything specific we should focus on.
I think Gitlab kind of suffers from the Ubuntu syndrome when they were still pushing the non-LTS release as default. Many things were not tested long enough and would cause issues for many people while they were using it.
For example after one upgrade browsing the repos didn't work because apparently the Git version hat to be a specific version. I think this was neither tested nor is the Git version mentioned anywhere as a requisite.
Or with v5.3 the Git satellites would get into an unclean state sometimes and had to be cleaned out manually.
I took quite some time to find this out too.
So my suggestion: more polish and testing and less new features.
Suggestion noted, thanks. By the way, both issues you mention (git version and satellite state) are now in the gitlab:check rake task so at least they are easier to detect. I'll make sure that the git version is added to the readme.
Except democracy has been around for at least 2500 years, and we still have it. It seems that all those other "awesome forms" fail and revert to the natural, default state of countries: democracy.
Which brings me to my second point: democracy seems to me like the natural order of a large group of people. It's natural for people to compete to achieve their goals, and democracy seems to be the only system that spreads success around.
We still have monarchies, but many of them are also democratic (hereditary monarch plus elected prime minister and legislature).
I agree we still have tyrannies too, because I think there's a cycle between them and democracies. Democracy weakens, a tyrant takes power, this lasts for a while before collapsing, then his competitors take power themselves (in some cases, democratically).
Democracies have collapsed and transformed into non-democracies and vice versa many times. States are shaped by their conditions, democracy does not seem to be any more of an attractor than various flavours of monarchism.
I agree, there seems to be a cycle between democracy and tyranny. However, I think hereditary monarchies are on their way out (with notable exceptions).
I don't really see the US or France (or many other countries) ever becoming a hereditary monarchy again. Even the communist countries weren't led by dynasties.
In the U.S.A, it seems hereditary monarchies have been replaced with hereditary presidencies(Adams, Harrison, Bush). Probably more loosely related ones to.
does recent historical record count, or do you need predictive results? Recent historical examples include the Industrial Moth. If you want to predict some evolution, pick an antibiotic and wait for it to become ineffective. Here's more:
And while we're beating each other with the scientific method, I believe [!] the onus is on those who think evolution to be an incorrect theory to provide a result that falsifies the premise.
FWIW, if you haven't read The Origin of Species, I can't recommend it strongly enough. It is my opinion Darwin is a better writer than Dawkins, Gould or Jones. The man could put together a lovely sentence.
There are a lot of data that are most simply explained by the concept of evolution. Any other explanation for evolution (such as God did it) requires the invocation of principles that have far less support than gene mutations during reproduction/replication.
You should probably read some Karl Popper on the philosophy of science. Falsifying something is pretty much the beginning and the end of the scientific method. The model of evolution, as yet, has not been decisively falsified.
Evolution is so in line with reality, scientists have already made correct predictions about transitional fossils and where they would be found. The only choices are belief in evolution or rejection of reality.
Because you don't reflash firmware every time you enable/disable this technologies, it's obvious that there must be some code which checks configuration flags to activate this features.
Twist is that such code is executed on dedicated specialised processor in chipset/CPU with own firmware and it does much more:
> But the company has adapted to the new developer world, embracing the cloud and open source and contributing important new technologies to the developer community.
Ok, don't make me laugh.
I wonder how much they pay him for writing this stuff.
Which part did you disagree with and what evidence do you have that it's not true?
Have ya not heard of any of the hundreds of open source projects that Microsoft has released? Typescript? ASP.NET MVC? Entity Framework? Reactive Extensions for .NET and Javascript?
Oh, did you expect them to just open source every single one of their products or something? Apple and Google don't even do that and I bet you love them, don't you?
My only request would be to focus more on stability. We run it for 1 year now and there were many problems with upgrades and various changing issues with the different versions.
So for us less new features but a better tested Gitlab would be great. Maybe some kind of "stable" release? Not sure...