Talk:Gitorious

This article was deleted in July 2009 because of a lack of notability references, then restored later in the same month.

"Used By" section lends notability?
I think we could compile a fairly impressive list of projects that use gitorious. Off the top of my head: qt, pulseaudio, parts of gnome, etc.. Do you think that this would help meet notability guidelines? - JasonWoof (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Pulseaudio and gnome use their own git deployments, probably what you saw were just mirrors

Oh, also, are there any other notable installations of the gitorious codebase that would help? - JasonWoof (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * http://git.sugarlabs.org/about

I don't know enough about Wikipedia to trust myself editing the article, but would the fact that git-scm.com lists Gitorious help? Dannytatom (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Restored article
Having improved the references, and Gitorious having itself become more notable since this article was deleted (KDE having announced it it is migrating to Gitorious), I've restored this article. If you have any objections, please discuss before deleting it (also please put a note on my talk page), either here or via AfD, rather than A7-ing it. Tuxcantfly (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are the categories commented out?
Today I noticed that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_services_supporting_OpenID was very short, and went to add Gitorious, but then saw that the categories (besides the Free Software stub) were commented out. Why is this? Should we publish them now that the article is published? JasonWoof (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Greenrd for checking and restoring the categories! JasonWoof (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

amarok/kde
Why did amarok/kde bail?

Should we say that they moved to gitorious and then moved off?

Are they running the gitorious code on their own server? (If not, do they plan to?)

Thanks,   -- JasonWoof (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Notable by MediaWiki?
This is one of the three official repositories for entries in the MediaWiki Foundation's October 2011 Coding Challenge, along with GitHub and the MediaWiki site itself (see details at the contest FAQ). I think this counts as a way to establish notability of this site, in that its usefulness is acknowledged by another site that qualifies as notable; and I don't think any conflict-of-interest consideration applies here (because of Wikipedia's affiliation with MediaWiki). B7T (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I also think Gitorious is notable enough to be here. Some other big software projects have their development hosted on it: Qt, identi.ca and XBMC come to my mind. Not as many as Github though it's a fair amount. Let's say Gitorious is to Github as ogg Vorbis is to mp3 in terms of popularity, or as the rest of Wikimedia is to Wikipedia ;) What is clear to me is that this article needs tons of expansion --187.205.217.70 (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gitorious. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120923125904/http://en.gitorious.org:80/tos/ to http://en.gitorious.org/tos/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gitorious. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110618035248/http://gitorious.org/about to https://gitorious.org/about
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110420041540/http://gitorious.org/gitorious to https://gitorious.org/gitorious
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110618035248/http://gitorious.org/about to https://gitorious.org/about
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.gitorious.org/tos/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

and of Gitorious
Krinkle, I’m not sure your last change is correct. The popularity of Gitorious certainly wasn’t rising in 2016, so doesn’t seem appropriate. Speaking about the revert of my change, I do agree in a way, but in that case we should put the historic data for before Gitorious was acquired by GitLab, since in 2016 it already has been, and the rating is for the archived version, not the original website. -- Andrej Shadura (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC).
 * @Andrej I believe there may've been a misunderstanding here. I've merely changed the indicator from using "positive decrease" to using the "rise" symbol, which in my opinion better communicates this direction. See Template talk:IncreaseNegative for more information about why I think using "decrease" is a confusing method of indicating that a subject moves upwards in rank (where the number gets lower). Regarding the pre-existing claim that Gitorious was rising in rank, you are right. The direction symbol was last updated in February 2014 in revision 593634960 when Gitorious rose from 40,373 to 36,809. Subsequent revisions 597602786 and 602197389 updated the rank to 34,128 (direction remained correct). Then the acquisition occurred, and eventually the archive went live in 2016. The ranks were then updated in November 2016 with revision 749778561 to 377,197 without updating the direction marker. I propose we restore the rank to how it was before 2015, but also remove the direction marker, which might not make sense for a closed site? --Krinkle (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree, that makes sense. Will you do the change? -- Andrej Shadura (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @Andrej: Done in revision 848581865. --Krinkle (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)