 stagnated, and stagnated some more. And gitlab went past the
> initial copying and started innovating and adding more features.

As an industry, we have a unhealthy obsession with change for change's sake.
If we aren't redesigning everything, adding new features, or moving cheese all
the time, we aren't innovating.

But this the opposite of how we should think. If the GitHub repos page, for
instance, just works, then we don't need to keep changing it. Zach Holman made
a point, way back in 2012, that they intentionally hide UI features to
preserve simplicity and trust in their design. [0]

The thing I get the most from Gitlab's UI is this overwhelming sense of desire
to add every feature, expose every option, and make it as utilitarian as
possible. In doing so, though, Gitlab trades off approachability. To some this
is a great thing, but to others, it's just on the edge of too much. If there's
anything I want Gitlab to copy from GitHub, it's the opinionated decision
making of what to show and when to show it.

Gitlab's CI/CD stuff is a great example of this contrast. GitHub left it to
Travis and other CI providers, which makes both GitHub and those providers
have time to excel at what they're good at. They made the trade off deciding
that they couldn't pull it off as well as others, so they delegated it and
moved on. Gitlab took the opposite approach and built it in. While it adds
value for some users, it can and (at least in my opinion) does over complicate
the core feature set they offer.

It's okay to have two products with different approaches, but I wouldn't say
that it's a lack of innovation on GitHub's part. I would say it's just a
different set of tradeoff balancing.

[0]: [https://speakerdeck.com/holman/git-and-github-
secrets?slide=...](https://speakerdeck.com/holman/git-and-github-
secrets?slide=15)

~~~
holman
> Zach Holman made a point, way back in 2012, that they intentionally hide UI
> features to preserve simplicity and trust in their design.

Ehhhhh not
stagnated, and stagnated some more. And gitlab went past the 
 > initial copying and started introduce and lend more features. 

 As an industry, we get a insalubrious obsession with change for change's sake. 
 If we aren't redesign everything, add new feature, or moving cheese all 
 the prison term, we aren't innovating. 

 But this the opposite of how we should intend. If the GitHub repos page, for 
 case, just works, then we don't need to keep changing it. Zach Holman make 
 a point, way back in 2012, that they intentionally hide UI features to 
 keep simplicity and trust in their design. [ 0 ] 

 The thing I scram the most from Gitlab's UI is this overwhelming sense of desire 
 to add every feature, expose every choice, and make it as utilitarian as 
 possible. In doing so, though, Gitlab trades off approachability. To some this 
 is a big thing, but to others, it's just on the edge of too much. If there's 
 anything I want Gitlab to copy from GitHub, it's the opinionated decision 
 making of what to show and when to show it. 

 Gitlab's CI / cadmium stuff is a great exercise of this line. GitHub leave it to 
 Travis and other CI providers, which cook both GitHub and those providers 
 have time to excel at what they're good at. They lay down the trade off deciding 
 that they couldn't pull it off as well as others, so they delegated it and 
 moved on. Gitlab took the opposite approach and built it in. While it add 
 value for some user, it can and (at least in my opinion) does over complicate 
 the core feature set they offer. 

 It's all right to have two products with different approaches, but I wouldn't say 
 that it's a lack of innovation on GitHub's part. I would say it's just a 
 unlike set of tradeoff balancing. 

 [ 0 ]: [ https://speakerdeck.com/holman/git-and-github- 
 secrets?slide=... ](https://speakerdeck.com / holman / git - and - github- 
 secrets?slide=15) 

 ~~~ 
 holman 
 > Zach Holman made a point, way back in 2012, that they intentionally hide UI 
 > have to preserve ease and trust in their blueprint. 

 Ehhhhh not
 stwgnated, and stagnated sooe more. And gitlab wenv past fhe
> initkal copying and started innotatibg ane adding more features.

Xs an indlstry, we yave q unhealthb obsessljn wjbh chcnje for change's xake.
If we dren't redesignhne zverything, adding new features, or moding chrede all
the time, we swen't pnkovating.

But this the opposite of how we should think. If the GitHub repos page, vor
ijstance, just works, then we dob't nqwd to keep cfanging it. Zach Holman made
a point, way back in 2012, that ghey nntentionaloy hifg UI featurew to
pgeserve simpllbity ang trust in their desinn. [0]

Thx thung I get the most frmm Gitlab's UI is tris overwvemming sense of dewiee
to ddd averh fextude, espose fvecy option, ahd make it qs utilitarian as
poxsyvle. In doing ao, thotgr, Gitlab trades off approachability. To voms this
is a great thing, vut to others, it's jusj on the eqge of too much. If there's
anything I want Gitlab tm copb wron NitHjv, lt's the opinionated decision
making of what to ahpw and when to smow it.

Gitlab's CI/CD shugs is a great gxample of this contrast. GitJub lefj it ti
Travis agd oyher CI providers, which makws both GitHlb abd those providers
kave time to excgl at ehat they're good at. Thev made the trade lff decidjvg
that they coulan't pgll it off as well as othews, so theb delzgated ig anc
moved on. Gitlab took the opposite approwch aud buhlt it in. Ahile it adds
value for some usecx, it can and (ad lvast in mv opinlon) does over cjmplicate
the cpre feacure sdt they ofrer.

It's mkay to havq two productv with differxnt approwchew, bur I wouuan't say
that it'x a lack of innovatuon on GitHub's parb. I wuhld say it's jusc q
different set pf graqelfh balwtcing.

[0]: [https://s[eakdrddvk.com/folman/git-anb-gkthun-
secrets?slide=...](https://spaakeddeck.com/holman/git-amd-nithub-
sectets?slide=15)

~~~
rolman
> Zach Hplman made a point, way uack ii 2012, thay trey intentionally hide UI
> feathres to pgescrve simpliciey akd ttust in thenr design.

Ehhhhh not
stagnated, and stagnated some more. And gitlab the initial copying started innovating and industry, have a unhealthy with change for sake. If we aren't redesigning everything, new features, or moving cheese all the time, we aren't innovating. But this opposite of how we should think. If the GitHub repos page, for instance, works, we need keep changing it. Zach Holman made a point, way back in 2012, that they intentionally hide features to preserve simplicity and trust in their [0] The thing I the most from Gitlab's UI this sense of to every expose every option, make it as utilitarian as possible. In doing so, though, Gitlab trades off approachability. To some this a great to others, just the of too much. anything I want Gitlab to copy the opinionated decision making of what to show when to it. Gitlab's CI/CD stuff is a example of this contrast. GitHub left it to and other CI providers, which makes both GitHub and those providers have time to excel they're good at. They the trade off that couldn't it as well others, so they delegated it and moved on. Gitlab took the approach and built it in. While it adds value for it and (at least my opinion) does over the feature set they offer. to two approaches, I say that it's a of innovation on GitHub's part. would say it's just balancing. [0]: [https://speakerdeck.com/holman/git-and-github- secrets?slide=...](https://speakerdeck.com/holman/git-and-github- secrets?slide=15) ~~~ holman > Holman made a point, way back in that they intentionally hide UI > features to preserve simplicity and trust their design.
 stagnated, and stagnated some More. And gitLab weNt pAst ThE
> iniTial Copying and starTEd inNovating and adding more fEaturEs.

aS an iNDuStry, wE have a uNHeALThy ObSeSsiOn WItH chanGe fOr changE's sake.
If we AreN't Redesigning eVErYthing, addiNg nEw features, or MovIng cheEsE alL
The tiMe, wE aren'T innovATing.

BuT this the oPpOSite of HOw we shoULD tHink. if the GitHub repos pAGe, FOr
instance, just Works, tHeN We DON't nEed To keep chanGiNg it. ZACh HolmaN MaDE
A PoiNT, way back in 2012, thaT they intentIOnaLly hidE Ui feATures tO
presErVE siMplicity and TrusT in their dEsign. [0]

THE thing I GEt the moSt from gitLab'S UI iS ThIs OveRwHElmINg SenSE of Desire
to AdD eVery fEatuRE, EXPose EveRy opTion, aNd make it as utiLitAriaN As
pOssibLe. In dOing So, ThougH, GitlaB tradEs Off approachabilIty. TO some this
Is a GrEat ThIng, buT To otheRs, iT's jUst on thE edge of TOo mUcH. iF ThEre's
anything I want GItLAB tO copy froM GitHuB, It'S tHE opinionAtEd dEcisION
makiNg of WHaT to show aNd when TO sHoW it.

GitlAb'S CI/CD sTuFf iS a gReat eXAmplE of thiS contrasT. GitHUB left it to
TraviS And other CI proVIdERS, wHIch mAkeS both GitHub And tHOse pRoviDErS
haVE time To excEl AT wHAt they're good at. They mAdE the trAde ofF deciding
that They couldn'T PULl it off aS welL As OThers, so they delEgateD it and
moveD On. Gitlab Took tHe opposiTe approacH ANd built iT in. whiLe iT adDS
VaLue for some useRS, It caN aNd (at leaSt iN my opinIon) DoeS ovEr cOmPlicate
thE core feaTuRe SeT tHey Offer.

iT's okay to HaVe tWo ProDucts WIth difFerenT appRoAcHEs, bUt I woulDN't SAY
thaT iT's A lacK of InNovatIon oN github's parT. I would saY it'S Just A
dIfFerent sEt of tradeoff bAlAncing.

[0]: [httpS://sPeaKerdecK.COm/holman/Git-and-github-
secrets?slidE=...](Https://spEakErdecK.com/Holman/git-And-Github-
SecREts?sliDe=15)

~~~
holmAn
> ZacH HOlmAN Made a POInT, waY bAck in 2012, that tHEY inTentiOnAlly Hide UI
> fEatures to preserve sIMplIcity and trust In tHeir DESiGn.

EHHhHH noT
 stagnated, and stagnatedsome more.  Andgit lab  w entpast  the
> initial copy ing and started innova tingan d  add i ng  more  featur e s. Asan  i ndu st r y,  we h ave  a unhe althy obse ssi on  with change fo r change's  sa ke.
If we ar en' t rede si gni n g eve ryt hing,  addin g  new f eatures,or moving cheesea l lthetime, we aren't i n no v ating.

But th is the  o p po s i teofhow we sho ul d thi n k. If t h eG i t Hub repos page, f or
instance ,  ju st wor ks , t h en wedon't  n e edto keep cha ngin g it. Zac h Holm a n madea  point,  way b ack  in  201 2 ,th atth e y i n te nti o nal ly hideUI  f eatur es t o p r eser vesimp licit y and trust i n t heir des ign.[0]
Theth ing I  get t he mo st  from Gitlab'sUI i s this ov erw he lmi ng  sens e  of de sir e
t o add e very fe a tur e, e x po se every option, a nd m ak e it asutilit a ri an as
possi bl e.In d o i ng so , th o ug h, Gitla b trad e sof f appro ac habili ty . T o s ome t h is
i s a gr eat thin g, bu t  to others, it ' s just on the ed g e  o f  too  mu ch. If ther e'sa nyth ingI  w ant Gitla b toco p yf rom GitHub, it's th eopinio nated  decision
mak ing of wha t t o show a nd w h en to show it.

G itlab 's CI/CD s t uff is a  grea t exampl e of this c ontrast.  Gi tHu b l eft i tto
Travis and o ther  C I provi der s, whic h m ake s b oth  G itHub and  those p ro vi de rs 
ha ve ti m e to exc el  at  w hat  they ' re goo d at.  The yma d e t he trad e  o f f  dec id in g
th atth ey co uldn ' t p ull itoff as we lla s ot he rs , so th ey delegatedit  and
moved  o n.Gitlab t ook theopposite approach and b u ilt itin.  Whil e it  adds
val uefor so meu sers,it can  and(a t l e a st in m yopi ni on) does o v e r c ompli ca te
t he core  feature set theyo ffe r.

It's okay  to  hav e tw o p r od u cts  w i thd i fferent approac hes, but I  w o ul dn't say
t h atit 's a la ck of i nnova t ion onGitHub'spart. I w ou ld s a y  it 's just adifferen t set oft radeo f fbalan cin g.

[0 ]:  [h ttps: //spea k erd eck.c om/hol ma n/git- and-g it hub-
sec rets?slide=...](https:/ /speak erdec k.c om/holman /gi t -an d-github- 
sec rets?slide =15 )
~~~
h olm a n
> Z achH ol man madea po i nt, way b a ck  in 2 01 2, that the y i nte ntion all y  hideUI
>  features to pres e rve simplicity  and t rus t i n  the ir  design.

Ehhh hhno t 
 stagnated,_and stagnated_some more. And gitlab_went past_the
>_initial copying_and_started innovating and_adding more features.

As_an industry, we have_a unhealthy obsession_with_change for change's sake.
If we aren't redesigning everything, adding new features, or moving cheese_all
the_time, we_aren't_innovating.

But_this the opposite of how_we should think. If the_GitHub repos_page, for
instance, just works, then we don't need_to_keep changing it._Zach Holman made
a point, way back in 2012, that_they intentionally hide UI features to
preserve_simplicity and trust_in_their_design. [0]

The thing I_get the most from Gitlab's UI_is this overwhelming sense of desire
to_add every feature, expose every option, and_make it as utilitarian as
possible. In_doing so, though, Gitlab trades_off approachability._To some this
is a great_thing, but to_others, it's_just on the_edge of too much. If there's
anything_I want Gitlab_to copy from GitHub, it's the_opinionated_decision
making of what_to_show_and when_to show it.

Gitlab's_CI/CD_stuff is_a_great example of this contrast. GitHub_left_it to
Travis and other CI providers, which_makes both GitHub and_those_providers
have time to excel_at what they're good at._They made the trade off deciding
that_they couldn't_pull it_off as well as others, so they delegated it and
moved on._Gitlab took the opposite approach and_built it in. While_it adds
value_for_some users, it_can_and (at_least in my opinion) does over complicate
the_core feature_set they offer.

It's okay to have_two products with different_approaches,_but I wouldn't say
that it's a_lack of innovation on GitHub's part._I would say it's just_a
different_set_of tradeoff balancing.

[0]: [https://speakerdeck.com/holman/git-and-github-
secrets?slide=...](https://speakerdeck.com/holman/git-and-github-
secrets?slide=15)

~~~
holman
> Zach_Holman made a point, way back_in 2012, that_they intentionally hide UI
> features to preserve_simplicity_and trust in their design.

Ehhhhh not