[ericfontaine]

Well if we're using "Responsiveness of the UI" as the metric, then I would argue that http://fossil-scm.org/ beats both GitLab and GitHub. Fossil is easily self hosted (just run one small executible file). And it is really fast, because it is written in C with sqlite and is simple and minimalistic. It is not git based, but is a simpler DVCS. Dynamically generated pages on my home computer take less than .001 ms to display. It has all the features most small developers need, with a builtin lightweight wiki, issue tracker, and code tree. Your self-hosted website is available even if you don't have an internet connection, or you can use free hosting service like http://chiselapp.com/. Of course it looses in terms of size of community. But popularity does not determine quality.

You will likely loose arguments on public forums if you make statements like "absolutely no objective reason to ..." because someone just needs one reason to disprove. Here goes: GitLab has a functioning interface for managing git projects and lets anyone selfhost the community edition. Therefore there is an objective reason to put a project on GitLab. QED.

[the_mitsuhiko]

> Well if we're using "Responsiveness of the UI" as the metric, then I would argue that http://fossil-scm.org/ beats both GitLab and GitHub.

Which is why I really don't think (and that was my original point) that a Google announcement of shutting down Google Code should act as some sort of advertisement for $code-hosting-site/project. Github and Bitbucket deserve the mention because those projects are well established.

[ericfontaine]

> "Github and Bitbucket deserve the mention because those projects are well established."

According to Wikipedia article, GitHub and Bitbucket were established in 2008, and GitLab in sept 2011, making it ~3.5 years old and about half the age. Although the precise meaning of "well established" is vague, and while you could say that GitHub and Bitbucket are "more established" than GitLab, I would say GitLab is at least "sufficiently established" (i.e. at least sufficient enough to host projects with %99+ uptime). Quick searches reveal that GitHub is known to go down, with major ddos in Nov 2011 and 2 hours in March 2014, Bitbucket was down sometime 27th April 2014, GitLab.com went offline for a full 8 hours in July 2014. (Someone who cares further can do a more precise comparison of uptime). But they were all fixed quickly, still up, functioning, learning, and improving. While maybe your threshold for consideration an internet service to be "well established" is different from another person's threshold, your threshold is not necessarily more valid and cannot be determined without more specific criterion.

Based alone on the argument that "well established" services deserve mention, then that should mean services established before Github and Bitbucket that are still running reliably should be mentioned as well. But you have specifically said it's ok for github and bitbucket to deserve mention but not others.

> "I really don't think (and that was my original point) that a Google announcement of shutting down Google Code should act as some sort of advertisement for $code-hosting-site/project."

It should not. And as I pointed out clearly in my original comment which I will repeat for emphasis as it has been the core of my whole argument:

"google code blogspot post specifically mentioned both GitHub 8 times and Bitbucket 3 times"

While it was appropriate (and arguably a duty as benefactor) for google to post a link to https://code.google.com/p/support-tools/ containing their export tools to github and bitbucket and the sourceforge import, that reference only takes one sentence and doesn't even require the google blog post itself to specifically mention any services. Considering that a shutdown announcement is a serious matter, it should be kept brief and limited to only information relevant to shutdown. All those specific references could have been omitted and the shutdown announcement would still make sense. By specifically mentioning certain services multiple times, the writer of the blog post has opened the door to queries about mentioning alternative services specifically. Had he written in a neutral manner (either by only posting the Wikipedia link or not mentioning any services), then it would have been inappropriate for GitLab to query for a request to be mentioned.