Pretty sure this product is just so you can store your code/repo for your project using Google's cloud services. It's part of a whole for their cloud offering.
Every IaaS provider (Google, Amazon, Azure) has added a code hosting service or will do so in the future. Having your code hosted here will increase lock-in which is the best way for the IaaS provider to increase margins in the future. However, code hosting is not the essence of that GitHub, BitBucket and we at GitLab offer. The essence is code collaboration: mentioning people, doing a code review, activity streams, etc. Getting this right is hard and I wonder if many IaaS providers will get this right.
The code delivery pipeline consists of issues, IDE, code hosting, CI, code review, configuration management, Continuous Delivery (CD) and a PaaS service. Code hosting is a first step and getting all the rest right is a lot of work. Services working on getting the IDE right are Koding, Nitrous.io, Cloud9, CodeAnywhere, Codio and CodeEnvy. And I suspect that GitHub Atom is running in a web-browser so they can effortlessly offer it online in the future. For configuration management you want to integrate with Chef, Puppet, Ansible, Salt and Docker.
At GitLab we offer CI and CD via GitLab CI. We hope for a multi-cloud future where organizations will deploy to different cloud providers. They will use PaaS software that spans the different IaaS providers. Cloud independent PaaS software offerings are CloudFoundry, OpenStack, OpenShift, Kubernetes, Mesos DCOS, Docker Swarm and Flynn. We want to ensure that GitLab is the best option to do code collaboration upstream from these offerings.
So one thing GitLab and others don't offer that Google can is tight integration with Deployment. Yeah we have all used the CI servers to do a form of Continous Delivery, but can google and amazon surpass those offerings by giving a tighter integration that a third part can't offer.
> And I suspect that GitHub Atom is running in a web-browser so they can effortlessly offer it online in the future.
A note about atom ... It does not run in a web browser and it would be damn hard to port it to the web since it runs on Node. It uses chromium for displaying the DOM but is not in a browser.
The reason people use GitHub is everything around the git hosting: the web interface, the account system, pull requests and issues, forking, comments, wikis, Pages, even the desktop and mobile apps. Hosting git repositories is straightforward, by design.
This article is only slightly more sensible than claiming that S3 is a GitHub competitor because you can git clone over HTTP.
To be honest, I only use github because everyone else does and because it's almost expected I should to. And since I'm job hunting, it means I throw a few projects on to github as a portfolio.
But for everything that I really care about, I still maintain private repos on my home server.
I use GH because everyone else seems to, and while the UI is nice, I think the permissions system is utterly broken so I now have to have multiple accounts so that I can allow third party access to my repos but not every repo I have access to.
So they killed Google code to... launch another code hosting thing?
Does Google have too many siloed product managers? Maybe you can only advance up the corporate ladder by releasing new products, and fuck all if they get killed later, because you got your promotion?
No clue what the cause. Just seems weird looking on from the sidelines.
After just wasting the last three nights migrating my old project (code was on GitHub, but the rest wasn't) off of Google code the chance of me putting code on a Google hosting service any time soon is pretty much zero.
About once a year for the last several years I have spent a few hours/days migrating stuff off of Google because the project is being shut down. Maybe they are just cleaning house from the mass of project in 2005-2010, but the constant reminder that the stuff I create is in danger if it lives on Google's servers is probably not the lesson they want to be teaching me.
Google code was project hosting, not just source hosting. This clickbait article is talking about a Google product that just does source hosting and is a part of the overall Google public cloud product strategy.
A while ago I remember hearing in some podcast from googler that they internally have separate source code management system (not related to Google Code). I wouldn't be surprised it he was talking about this one and they finally decided to make it public. Killing Google Code was probably just because not many people used it (externally or internally).
It's integrated directly into the cloud product. Since its purpose is not to host your code, but make your code visible to the cloud product itself, expect it to live as long as the cloud product.
... and since the cloud product actually offers a direct way for Google to generate revenue from the service, I'd assume it'd live for awhile. ;)
My team has just started looking for a github replacement because the code review workflow is just not working for us, we need something with more structure. I think there's plenty of space for feature and price competition, especially for private repos where github's social network effects don't matter as much.
It's certainly Google Cloud branded, but it appears to have somewhat equivalent functionality to Github.
For Google to launch something purely as a "Github competitor" would be silly because those using Github would quickly dismiss it; "we already have Github!"
So Google are playing up the integration with the rest of Google Cloud, integrating with Github and Bitbucket, and offering additional features.
You have to extrapolate a bit to realize it, and Google probably won't admit it, but this is definitely intended as a Github/Bitbucket competitor.
This is clickbait. Nevertheless, my first thought was "GitHub is much better and much much safer than anything Google can offer". Back in the day, were Microsoft to offer a competitor to a small company's product and my reaction would be: "They're dead in the water".
Yes. Google now try to take it all like the old Microsoft. No wonder they get bad response for each new product like that people simply don't trust them anymore.
Sure, it'll compete with GitHub but I think a more exciting possibility is that it'll compete with Heroku. CodeCommit (similar service offered by AWS) integrates with other AWS services to help manage deployment and releases but I still find the entire AWS platform to be very difficult to use. I would love to see Google add pressure to all three companies to make their respective products better.
Calling the GCP source hosting a competitor with github is nonsense. No public access to these repos, for one, so they're completely unsuitable for general project hosting.
So interesting. This race for features between the cloud vendors feels crazy to me, but totally makes sense from a business perspective. Classic attempt at locking you in to a single platform.
"Using Cloud Source Repositories is easy if you are familiar with Git. For example, you can add a Cloud Source Repository to a local Git repository as a remote, or you can connect it to a hosted repository on GitHub or Bitbucket"
I'm curious what kinds of additional features you'd be interested in here. In these comments so far I've heard code review, access control and online IDE. Would any of those be useful? What else would be useful?
Of course, we're pretty proud of our git support. We also support "connected repos" where we keep a repo in Cloud Source Repositories in sync with a repo you specify on GitHub or BitBucket; if you make a change on GH or BB, it's reflected into GCSR and vice versa. The idea is that you should be able to integrate with the features we're building on top of GCSR without making you move away from GH or BB. Useful?
For my personal projects, I'm fine with my own git server on a cheap vm, but for work I've been really happy with Github's issue tracker and org membership administration (with which we use OAUTH heavily for internal tools, several of which queue background computation). Github issues are much easier for tracking job submissions from analysts than integrating with the company email, and developers prefer it.
I looked at GitLab a year ago. I liked it, but it was a little funky (avatars weren't working; obviously not mission critical, but little shit like that erodes confidence -- either support a feature or don't, but never half ass it because I'm not going to admin over a server when I've got a chorus analysts bitching about it being hacky). GitLab people: this was a digitalocean prepared image version of GitLab, in case you're listening.
Version control is really the most minor and easy to replicate part of Github's value proposition.
Thanks for looking at GitLab and sorry to hear that avatars didn't work. There was an issue with avatars and using relative urls 7 months ago: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/369 This was fixed. But if you used relative urls please consider switching to a full hostname, it is a better experience. We recommend installing packages from our package server https://about.gitlab.com/downloads/ since templates on cloud providers might be out of date.
meh. this has zero chances of competing with github. I think it's meant more for Google Cloud Platform users to have a place where to store their code within the same "cloud"
To me, this more looks like a Google's cloud IDE (targeted Java), for which it would of course make sense to have code-hosting there also. It makes sense for Google to have one, unlike just a GitHub competitor, imho.
[+] [-] exacube|10 years ago|reply
Pretty sure this product is just so you can store your code/repo for your project using Google's cloud services. It's part of a whole for their cloud offering.
[+] [-] mwilcox|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stickfigure|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d0vs|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] downboy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sytse|10 years ago|reply
The code delivery pipeline consists of issues, IDE, code hosting, CI, code review, configuration management, Continuous Delivery (CD) and a PaaS service. Code hosting is a first step and getting all the rest right is a lot of work. Services working on getting the IDE right are Koding, Nitrous.io, Cloud9, CodeAnywhere, Codio and CodeEnvy. And I suspect that GitHub Atom is running in a web-browser so they can effortlessly offer it online in the future. For configuration management you want to integrate with Chef, Puppet, Ansible, Salt and Docker.
At GitLab we offer CI and CD via GitLab CI. We hope for a multi-cloud future where organizations will deploy to different cloud providers. They will use PaaS software that spans the different IaaS providers. Cloud independent PaaS software offerings are CloudFoundry, OpenStack, OpenShift, Kubernetes, Mesos DCOS, Docker Swarm and Flynn. We want to ensure that GitLab is the best option to do code collaboration upstream from these offerings.
[+] [-] dkhenry|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mchahn|10 years ago|reply
A note about atom ... It does not run in a web browser and it would be damn hard to port it to the web since it runs on Node. It uses chromium for displaying the DOM but is not in a browser.
[+] [-] hamitron|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geofft|10 years ago|reply
This article is only slightly more sensible than claiming that S3 is a GitHub competitor because you can git clone over HTTP.
[+] [-] laumars|10 years ago|reply
But for everything that I really care about, I still maintain private repos on my home server.
[+] [-] shrineOfLies|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IanCal|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] stock_toaster|10 years ago|reply
Does Google have too many siloed product managers? Maybe you can only advance up the corporate ladder by releasing new products, and fuck all if they get killed later, because you got your promotion?
No clue what the cause. Just seems weird looking on from the sidelines.
[+] [-] icefox|10 years ago|reply
About once a year for the last several years I have spent a few hours/days migrating stuff off of Google because the project is being shut down. Maybe they are just cleaning house from the mass of project in 2005-2010, but the constant reminder that the stuff I create is in danger if it lives on Google's servers is probably not the lesson they want to be teaching me.
[+] [-] Kudos|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Juha|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] camhenlin|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clintonc|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fixermark|10 years ago|reply
... and since the cloud product actually offers a direct way for Google to generate revenue from the service, I'd assume it'd live for awhile. ;)
[+] [-] baby|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guelo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thekevan|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jfoster|10 years ago|reply
For Google to launch something purely as a "Github competitor" would be silly because those using Github would quickly dismiss it; "we already have Github!"
So Google are playing up the integration with the rest of Google Cloud, integrating with Github and Bitbucket, and offering additional features.
You have to extrapolate a bit to realize it, and Google probably won't admit it, but this is definitely intended as a Github/Bitbucket competitor.
[+] [-] pbreit|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sergiosgc|10 years ago|reply
Food for thought...
[+] [-] prapam2|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sagivo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshuak|10 years ago|reply
Hint: source code is not GitHub's value, just like books where not Amazon's. GitHubs true value is something Google is profoundly bad at.
[+] [-] hoodoof|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wasd|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] campers|10 years ago|reply
That along with the cloud debugging from their git repo are some nice to haves.
[+] [-] skj|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bradhe|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fixermark|10 years ago|reply
"Using Cloud Source Repositories is easy if you are familiar with Git. For example, you can add a Cloud Source Repository to a local Git repository as a remote, or you can connect it to a hosted repository on GitHub or Bitbucket"
If the goal is lock-in, they're doing it wrong.
[+] [-] AdieuToLogic|10 years ago|reply
Isn't that what happens immediately after one places their artifacts into "the cloud"?
[+] [-] 10098|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csells|10 years ago|reply
Chris Sells PM, Google Cloud Platform
[+] [-] davidbanham|10 years ago|reply
That's not a feature of this product, it's just how git works.
[+] [-] csells|10 years ago|reply
Chris Sells PM, Google Cloud Platform
[+] [-] catshirt|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fixxer|10 years ago|reply
For my personal projects, I'm fine with my own git server on a cheap vm, but for work I've been really happy with Github's issue tracker and org membership administration (with which we use OAUTH heavily for internal tools, several of which queue background computation). Github issues are much easier for tracking job submissions from analysts than integrating with the company email, and developers prefer it.
I looked at GitLab a year ago. I liked it, but it was a little funky (avatars weren't working; obviously not mission critical, but little shit like that erodes confidence -- either support a feature or don't, but never half ass it because I'm not going to admin over a server when I've got a chorus analysts bitching about it being hacky). GitLab people: this was a digitalocean prepared image version of GitLab, in case you're listening.
Version control is really the most minor and easy to replicate part of Github's value proposition.
[+] [-] sytse|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mirceal|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] personjerry|10 years ago|reply
No one seemed to like it. Heck, Google didn't seem to like it enough to give it any love, just check out the UI on the site: https://code.google.com/hosting/search?q=label%3aPython
[+] [-] detaro|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jabo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bradabrams|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] k_bx|10 years ago|reply