Talk:GitLab

Undeletion request (2014)

The GitLab page was deleted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GitLab due to the lack of a reliable secondary source proving it's notability at the time.

I (GitLab CEO) hope it can be re-listed based on an recent article in a major publication.

Also, GitLab is 10x larger in Google trends than competitors that do have a wikipedia page http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=gitlab%2C%20rhodecode%2C%20gitorious

I'm using this page since it was mentioned in the deletion review (Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page such as the article's talk page) and I was afraid to make mistakes requesting an official Deletion review. Please let me know if I should do something else.

I've already tried to contact the replacement of the closing administrator but this was deleted without comments https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hahc21&diff=next&oldid=612385463 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sytses (talk • contribs) 14:48, 15 July 2014‎

I am confident that GitLab's notability is obvious now. --ChPietsch (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The page was undeleted, thanks! Sytse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sytses (talk • contribs) 20:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Non-neutral content

One of the GitLab B.V. employees added content that reads like an advertisement. It rightfully got flagged. We'll removed it. Sorry for the noise, this person won't make the same mistake again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sytses (talk • contribs) 16:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

As a third-party editor, it seems to me that the content is now neutral. It does not read to me like an advertisement in its current version, so I am going to remove that note PDX5354 (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to know what it does. All I could find was history of it doing something, supposedly. 90.241.221.120 (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Spelling of CTO's name

The CTO and co-founder spells his name Dmitriy as evidenced in the numerous interviews . Please refrain from changing the spelling of his name. Kaedues15 (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Promotional edits

content like this quote "Please note that while we think of ourselves as an open source company it would be more accurate to call it an open core company since we ship both the open source GitLab Community Edition and the close source GitLab Enterprise Edition" has absolutely no place in an encyclopaedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Unclear what the article is about

It is unclear what the article is about, is it about the software, the website or a company? Theroadislong (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: Typically - and in this case - it's about all 3 of it. It's a general problem for companies mainly based on one software system. Any suggestion on how to deal with that? I think the current way of having one article for all of it is the best solution or what would you recommend? (Splitting it into GitLab (company) and GitLab (software)? Or seperate sections for said? ...) --Fixuture (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I have trimmed the lede back a bit the other meanings are still represented in the article. Theroadislong (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added an infobox for the self-hosted version, using the {{Elasticsearch}} page as an example. Maybe that helps. Alicebob (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for removal of prose and primary sources issue tags

Primary sources annotation was added in December 2016, as of today there are very few primary sources, and they are used mostly as base for information like number of employees, reference to license, and feature-set.

History section was changed from list format to prose.

Done

Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Whose?

The second paragraph says: "initially as a source code management solution to collaborate with his team". Who does 'his' refer to? The CTO? Slimeypete (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess it is Dmitriy Zaporozhets. But the article should definitely be clearer about this. Good catch. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

GitLab Application

The section called "GitLab Application" added by User:Tech201805 is entirely promotional content and only sourced to their own website, it should be removed. Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This issue permeates this article. Maybe we can "require" secondary sources for new content so that we don't get more and more information sourced from their official pages. I think all of the relevant information about the company will be available from somewhat decent secondary sources. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Size Limits

I can't make out what this sentence means, "GitLab currently does not have any limits on how large a single file can be, as long as it stays under the 10 gigabyte limit". Doesn't that just mean it does have a size limit, and the size limit is 10GB? Llamabr (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

History section getting long

(I'm a declared insider.) The company/software history is getting pretty long, providing a section for every year. It might make sense to consolidate this as other articles do by phase. I'll try to do this if I can find the time, but anyone can contribute in the meantime :) Dmarquard (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Acquisitions can be separated into their own section for a start. Then if needs be in the future then we can create a dedicated page for History (History of GitLab) DownTownRich (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

done just that. Abraxxass12 (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

CFO name misspelled

Misspelled first name of the CFO. KingTheD you most likely last touched that. Brian not Brain 2001:56A:7720:3000:28C9:FF44:E09E:E805 (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

CFO last name also misspelled!

Robins not Robbins. KingTheD you again? 2001:56A:7720:3000:28C9:FF44:E09E:E805 (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguity and mixup

To many people, "GitLab" is the company-maintained database of second-party code projects. To others it is the company's own software product. However most of this article focuses on GitLab Inc, the company which both maintains that database and makes its software freely available for others to set up locally with their own databases (and a good many do just that). The History section especially is a real mess in this respect. This article badly needs these three aspects - the company, the software, and the managed database service, to be disambiguated and treated as separate entities. Any ideas on the best approach? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The majority of readers would likely expect the article to be focused on the GitLab platform, not the company GitLab Inc. Currently, the software platform itself is discussed in a very small capacity in the Application section.

To improve upon these issues, I suggest a new section be added named Services in which the GitLab platform offerings are detailed, similar to how GitHub has been structured, a sister platform that also suffers from the problem of the company name and platform name being the same. This would be an improvement, as the page currently reads more like a company's about us webpage than a encyclopedic article. AMightyKnight (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

This Article is Awful

Whoever wrote this should be banned. KingTheD (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Wait why is the article "bad"?

So I'm new to Wikipedia, joining about a week or so. I was reading the article and went to the talk page. If anyone is willing to give me insight on why the article is bad (Up to Wikipedia's or your standards, please let me know. DimitriChristophy (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)