undefined | Better HN

0 pointsBarrin925y ago0 comments

There's no need to rely on a third party provider given that it's possible to host say, Gitlab yourself. For a project of the size of the linux kernel that's more than a worthwhile investment.

0 comments

ssivark5y ago

In this context it’s wise to move conservatively. Gitlab has “come of age” only in the last few years. We see that KDE is now moving. If that works well, I wouldn’t be surprised if other OSS projects slowly start migrating.

Remember that there is heavy organizational inertia and culture on the LKML. Moving to Gitlab is practically akin to gutting that and beginning a fresh project with forked code — the kind of cultural makeover that most companies don’t survive, and won’t do unless they’re forced to. And maintaining starting culture is even more crucial for volunteer-driven projects than for corporate projects with very different incentives.

franga20005y ago

I really don't see a reason to not use both. Even right now, a maintainer of some subsystem could conceivably create a repo on Gitlab* and accept PRs there, which they could then (rebase-?)merge in and sync with git.kernel.org with Linus never having to know about it.

The problem is cultural, as well as organizational. Firstly, I doubt any of the current maintainers would be willing to do that, especially without Linus's blessing and secondly, without a fully managed Gitlab* instance that takes care of sync and whatever else automatically (provided by the Foundation), this would be an unreasonable burden on the maintainers.

RMPR5y ago

> I really don't see a reason to not use both. Even right now, a maintainer of some subsystem could conceivably create a repo on Gitlab* and accept PRs there, which they could then (rebase-?)merge in and sync with git.kernel.org with Linus never having to know about it.

FWIW that's already happening with the BPF subsystem https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf

ta177117715y ago

Or Gitea!

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse