| 1 |
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:25 PM Denis Dupeyron <calchan@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 12:57 PM Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> blah blah blah |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
My goal was to offer information. IMO this is unwarranted. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Yeah, right. I work my ass off on this crap job all day and make peanuts. It's weird though, because in theory I could be a billionaire. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I don't recall anybody making this personal or mentioning you in any way? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Knowing that gitlab.com is neither CE nor EE, and that there's this |
| 15 |
> hosting thing to self-hosted, we couldn't spin up a proper GitLab |
| 16 |
> service like the one on gitlab.com overnight if they pulled the plug |
| 17 |
> on us. In other words, making use of and relying on their hosting, |
| 18 |
> even using only CE features, would make us totally dependent on them, |
| 19 |
> and hence not respecting our social contract. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Are you suggesting that we can't make use of hosted FOSS-only |
| 22 |
solutions because that would make us dependent on somebody else? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I completely agree that this needs to be done cautiously, but in the |
| 25 |
case of FOSS-only externally hosted solutions I don't see how this is |
| 26 |
contrary to the social contract. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Now, in the case of gitlab.com I can see the argument that the |
| 29 |
software they're hosting isn't purely FOSS, so it is much more of a |
| 30 |
judgement call. However, I don't think this has anything to do with |
| 31 |
the fact that it is hosted, but just with the fact that it isn't |
| 32 |
purely FOSS. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Again, I'm speaking to the social contract, which was the main topic |
| 35 |
of this thread. Practical concerns around any kind of externally |
| 36 |
hosted solution are completely valid, but IMO a separate issue. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> I happen to know someone too. Someone who has spent 100% of his time |
| 39 |
> for the better part of the last two years setting up such a service |
| 40 |
> at a large company with a platinum GitLab license. This person is |
| 41 |
> currently sitting between my keyboard and my chair. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
So, I wasn't suggesting that anybody listen to me as some kind of |
| 44 |
expert on GitLab. Since the topic of gitlab.com came up, and I had |
| 45 |
information that perhaps not everybody else had, I felt it would be |
| 46 |
helpful to share it. I mentioned (vaguely) the source of the info |
| 47 |
because that sort of thing is useful when vetting information. If it |
| 48 |
were a strong concern I wouldn't be surprised if we could (perhaps |
| 49 |
privately) obtain formal assurances around this from GitLab, if that |
| 50 |
would sway any decisions one way or another. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
I'm not advocating for or against the use of GitLab here, whether |
| 53 |
self-hosted or hosted by them. gitlab.com was mentioned, and I |
| 54 |
figured I'd add something to the discussion, If the information isn't |
| 55 |
useful, well, don't use it. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
And if you just wanted to say that you think it is wiser not to rely |
| 58 |
on anything externally-hosted whether it is FOSS or not, that could |
| 59 |
have been done in a sentence, and would IMO be a completely reasonable |
| 60 |
argument. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Apologies if I misinterpreted the mood of your email. It just seemed |
| 63 |
half-worded like a personal attack, in what is otherwise a pretty |
| 64 |
straightforward discussion around the social contract... |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
-- |
| 67 |
Rich |
Archives