Thanks for taking the time to reply :)
Just a few things. ;)
1. I think we should stop saying this would replace fedorahosted or
change fedorahosted directly. I think very likely we would want this to
be a new service all it's own and those people who find the features it
offers compelling could switch to using it or start new projects on
I think some projects would really like the gitlab git handling and
issues tracking would be enough for them. Others would prefer the
current fedorahosted trac and download space and such. I could see
gitlab also being much more used for incubating new projects and then
when they are more stable they would also want a fedorahosted space for
the other items.
You are right, indeed. When I think of fedorahosted, I am used to think
the git part. I will correctthis ;)
2. we looked more at gitlab recently, and one difficult thing is
it's not so geared for public access. They did add a thing where it
will now show a page for public repos with http cloning I think, but
aside from that it's very set for all users to sign into it.
There are patches around to add a 'guest' user that can look around and
see things, but upstream doesn't wish to merge them. See:
Without those patches things are a bit strange for our use case. We
want people to be able to view and see everything, even if they don't
have an account.
If you look back at my response , that was my concern as well.
is that working together with upstream, maybe they will reconsider this
and implement such feature. If Fedora decides to make use of it, that will
be a big promotion for GitLab, since the app could be easilyinstalledto
RHEL or Centos servers.
I'm not sure if we would want to carry those patches in our
come up with some way with upstream to apply them conditionally or
something. Someone suggested plugins ability could be used.
Anyhow, just my thoughts... thanks for working on this!
We definitely don't want to patchthis ourselves! This would be a stopper
I guess. Thanks again for your feedback!