[saghul]

They do say "The Gitea project will of course remain open source, and a community project."

It's not clear to me if they intend to further develop Gitea or work on the non open parts. Looking at the reactions and the announcement it looks like everyone assumes the latter.

I wonder why not both?

[bayindirh]

Because this is how GitLab did it. Started with open source w/ closed parts, then progressively hid source and ways to download and install GitLab on your own infrastructure.

Currently (as I checked 30 seconds ago), downloading and installing is easy, but finding the small "Install" text on the bottom of the page is not. You need to further dig the docs to find the location of the source in the webpage, too.

Everybody assumes that Gitea took the first step towards this state, and they are right to assume that, because we have no other prominent examples.

And I tend to agree with them, too.

[dnsmichi]

GitLab team member here.

Which website did you open to download and install GitLab? about.gitlab.com > Resources > Install provides an overview of all distributions and installation methods (packages, cloud native, etc.) at [0]

> You need to further dig the docs to find the location of the source in the webpage, too.

I assume that the intention was to download GitLab's source code and start the installation from there?

The recommended way to install GitLab is through packages and cloud-native deployments. There are many components involved in the architecture [1], and these methods also help ensure that (database) migrations are run as intended, keeping upgrade maintenance short. Installing from sources is not recommended, albeit possible.

The source code is available for both, open source (CE) and source available (EE), following GitLab's stewardship promise [3].

Maybe this needs an update for the website, please let us know.

[0] https://about.gitlab.com/install/

[1] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/architecture.html

[2] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab

[3] https://about.gitlab.com/company/stewardship/#promises

[bayindirh]

First, I want to note that the comment didn't meant to take a jab at GitLab. I'm administering self-hosted GitLab on two installations for a decade now, and had no problems with it. Actually, I wanted to move to GitLab when I decided to leave GitHub, but, Source Hut fits my needs better.

I went to "www.gitlab.com", which sent me to "about.gitlab.com". I scanned the page, and looked to solutions first, expecting to see "Self Hosted", not seeing it, I clicked to Pricing, where I failed to see Self-managed install. Possibly frustrated, scrolled down and found the "Install" link.

I remember peeking at Resources menu, too but I looked to the first three or so entries possibly. I chalk the situation to a bona fide PEBKAC + Friday tiredness.

> I assume that the intention was to download GitLab's source code and start the installation from there?

Actually no. I trust to a codebase which I'm using for a decade. In most cases, I try to find the code repository to look at the licenses, code organization, or to see how something works. In this case I wanted to do the same (see the licenses, and find the repo in general). I expected to find a direct link to the source code repository. This case was the same. I just want to see the code, and take a look around.

Being able to find the source code repository only via documentation, at least for me, sends the message of "The code is there, but we actually don't want you to see/access it so easily, unless you really want to".

> The source code is available for both, open source (CE) and source available (EE), following GitLab's stewardship promise.

I didn't know that EE was source available. I'm adding this as a plus to my mental notebook, and honestly thanks for being like this.

All in all, I understand (and deeply respect) GitLab for being what it is. I witnessed it becoming from a GitHub clone(ish) to a CI/CD first development platform. I possibly wanted to be greeted by a more developer-oriented webpage than a customer-oriented one, but I guess this works well for you, so I have no complaints.

Thanks for directly answering my comment, and filling the gaps in my knowledge. I really, greatly appreciate it.

[Y_Y]

I "recommend" you work on making the install process better then. There are projects bigger and more complex than gitlab that don't have any trouble with installing from source.

[mdaniel]

It also has contributor benefits: if I can't build the repo into a working state, I can't contribute fixes. That's jammed me up with GitLab at least 3 different times now where I've opened issues that I'm perfectly capable of fixing, but since I'm not a battle-hardened Rubyist, and gdk is both some whatthehell and also dies mysteriously, those issues just lie on the pile with the other 46,000

[dnsmichi]

Thanks for the feedback. Would you mind sharing the problems with GDK in a new issue, or link an existing one, and tag me there? Thanks! https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-development-kit/-/issue...

Running the GDK on Gitpod can be alternative: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-development-kit/-/blob/...

[mikecoles]

Just installed Gitlab again yesterday.

On their 'Pricing' page, the different setups are listed - https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/

Click "Self-Managed" takes you to https://about.gitlab.com/install/

Fairly easy to find. If not, Ctrl-F.

[jolheiser]

The current plan, as far as I know it, is to continue on the OSS part predominantly.

The only parts that would not be, would be anything that comes from a contract and doesn't make sense to contribute back. For example, if a company wants some bespoke functionality that doesn't make sense in the main repo.