On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:32:20PM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Similarly, gitlab clearly is open source and welcomes contributions, but is that something we would be positioned to take advantage of? (Launchpad has been open source but I don't know that we've taken any advantage of that.)
GitLab is very very smaller than Launchpad, and find a random Ruby developer with some time to tackle a small bug ought to not be so hard. Also AFAIK GitLab developers/maintainers are very receptive to patches; instead Launchpad is very large and complex, and there are only 2 active developers working on it (they are doing great, but they are still only 2, and there is always the fear that Canonical might reassign them to another team (personally I see this as improbable to happen soon though)).
I.e. is the performance and UX ok?
I find github visibly outperforms gitlab, sadly. I think gitlab is now moving from Azure cloud into their own DC just to improve this; I don't know how far they are with that plan.
Another idea is to keep the main repository on launchpad, which can now do git too, and maintain mirrors accepting pull requests from both gitlab and github, or some other combination. Git is a *D*VCS, there is no real need to keep only one upstream copy.