Public Projects #12

ghost opened this Issue Oct 15, 2011 · 58 comments


None yet
ghost commented Oct 15, 2011

I noticed in the tests, that there is mention of public projects in gitlabhq. Now, when creating my first repository, I did not see any mention of that.

Is that public project feature coming, or am I overlooking something really simple?

By the way: Awesome project.

sairam commented Oct 15, 2011

dup of #10

randx commented Oct 15, 2011

From begining we planned to have both private & public repositories. But main goal of project is storing private repos on your own servers.
We are not a competitor for github. Some companies don't want to rely on 3rd parties for something as critical to their business as source code. Thats why when i couldnt use github - i decide to make gitlab.
So answer for public repositoires is "no" for now.

@randx randx closed this Oct 15, 2011
lefred commented Nov 26, 2011

I understand your answer, but in my case I didn't want a real public access, I was more referring to some repo that we have in our gitlab that are private to provide read-only access to the gitlabs pages (dashboard, comments, diff) to users that are already in our git-lab.



Saw this issue when doing a search for read-only. I need something similar. We have a few servers that need access to our git repositories. They simply checkout or pull code. They never push. It'd be nice to have an https-read-only link that I can clone from. In addition, maybe provide some project setting that allows me to turn this feature on and off. This way I don't have to manage so many keys. Our Gitlab server is internal anyway, so public access is really only public internally. Let me know what you think.

@CedricGatay CedricGatay added a commit to CedricGatay/gitlabhq that referenced this issue Dec 26, 2011
@CedricGatay CedricGatay Autolinks to issues in commit message (see #155)
It matches #[0-9]+ in commit messages.
For example
 * Fix for #12
 * Code review for #56
 * Test for #15, Review on #54, Fix for #42

 It only links to valid issues (existing and belonging to the current project)
 It does not add any link to the commit in the issue page, it only consists in parsing the commit message when displayed.

 This can be considere as a primary work for the issue #155 on gitlabhq/gitlabhq.
dekz commented Jun 26, 2012

I think this should be investigated. Since it's hosted internally really all projects should be public, unless you want to hide away forks or code form your team members. I think a discovery option for repositories would be great also.




What would really work for me is when I can have a checkbox "Make public via git protocol"
The git protocol is an anonymous protocol that allows people to only pull the data. So there is no need for an account or uploading SSH keys.
It is fine if the webinterface stays as it is now (i.e. closed / only when you have an account) and if someone wants this I would have to email them the clone URL.


As a stopgap hack, is there a single place I can go in and change the code to fallback to "Developer" role when no other role has been assigned to a user for a project?

Here's a script for such a hack:


I would really appreciate a feature like this as well. Mainly, I would use it to provide an alternative to Github's public repos, as I would have "unlimited" storage, instead of their suggested 1GB, per project.

Also, as much as I like using cloud based systems, I want to ensure the security and reliability of my host by using a personal server.

As you do not have any plans for making this a feature in the near future, would there be a timetable when we could potentially see something like this?

jayzeng commented Aug 24, 2012


WTK commented Aug 30, 2012



I don't even need "public" I just want to have reusable teams. It would be great if I could use LDAP groups but if that is not an option I'd like to be able to take my admin team and assign it to our tools instead of going to each tool and remaking the list over and over again.




I would love see this feature. We have a internal server where I would like all projects to be publicly accessible.


Like everybody, I want this public thing, this would be a killer feature for gitlab as a self-hosted alternative to github (i.e I want to control my infrastructure BUT I want to share code).

flatzo commented Oct 31, 2012


XORwell commented Nov 7, 2012






Just set up GitlabHQ, super straightforward to install, well built interface,
try to push a git repo and it works!

But there is no homepage I can access without logging in..
so I look for the option to make my repos public..
And it doesn’t exist!

Quite surprised.
So I guess I come with different expectations.

@desaintmartin nails it:

i.e I want to control my infrastructure BUT I want to share code

That’s how I feel as well.
I want to be able to experiment with my git hosting, for which I need a self-hosted solution,
And the possibility to show publicly is vital for my projects.

Thanks for reconsidering!

aleray commented Nov 17, 2012


Just installed gitlab. I was quite impressed to see how easy it was to get it up and running thanks to the nice tutorial. But I must say I was also a little bit surprised to see that it was not possible to allow anonymous users to browse the code and get read-only access.

I'm switching from gitweb specifically because gitlab offers a much more interesting interface to git. Would you consider including this feature in future releases? It might not be your priority, but I'm sure a lot of people around would be glad to see it happening!

Thanks for all the good work,


boyska commented Nov 17, 2012

The issue has been closed; does that mean that a merge request about this won't even be considered?




I think public read only access would be great when using this in a local network.



maxikg commented Dec 18, 2012





Even within our company (of which many are not developers) it would be nice to at least allow access to the web components such as the wiki and issues. We also have coded git into our pipeline to allow anonymous read only checkouts that are performed by other code libraries. I do see why it may not be important in your infrastructure, but it would be a critical feature in ours. Hosting gitlab internally will allow "public" access to information only within our organziation's intranet.

Anyhow thanks for the great tool!

Toub commented Dec 28, 2012

+1: please add the possibility to have a public project!



niko001 commented Jan 5, 2013


Awesome project, by the way!



vvo commented Jan 10, 2013

Hiding information in your company to your employees: best way to have people creating code that already exists.

By default every repo should be public to read.

Public: everyone can review it.


wise words vvo.

ptmt commented Jan 14, 2013


randx commented Jan 14, 2013

partly done by #2549


Nice improvement, but for me it does not close this issue. Issue is about "public project", i.e http cloning (done) AND anonymous web view (not done). Can you reopen it?

randx commented Jan 14, 2013

nope. I am not going to implement anonymous web view.


demand is clearly there. is anyone aware of a fork that does this?

Toub commented Jan 14, 2013

"Some companies don't want to rely on 3rd parties for something as critical to their business as source code."
=> yes, and sometime they want to also share their source code, if the project is open-source.

I understand that this is not your main objective, but you should also admit that the community is asking for this feature.

Would you accept push request? If not, why? Do you have an agreement with github ?

Toub commented Jan 14, 2013

In this pull request (#2558) you said that you will provide an other solution, so will that solve the problem?


We would really like to at least share the Wiki and allow Issue creation anon. We could potentially take care of the Issue creation via the API, but allowing the anonymous users to see the Wiki would be huge.


I think all of you should see the bridge between this and that #2549 issue.

There, I posted two comments:

Great! I know that you are totally against this and do that only as a flavor to all users - and that's what I really appreciate. It's not only the feature, it's you - willing to do that. Thanks a lot!


one more addition to this. I once read that it's not only a question of what is missing/wished, but also of do we really need it. nearly everything could be integrated (someone always wishes something), but a good developers asks himself, if it really is useful.

I wrote this so less experienced users may think about it - it's so important..and of course that the gitlab team knows, it's doing the absolutely right thing.`

I don't want to celebrate myself as a good author or anything (I'm not linking/quoting because of that) - but we all, we as Gitlab users should also respect the concerns of the developers - not only the other way around! They already implemented much features that might not really make them happy, but they did it.
So let us be so kind as well and respect it too, that they won't implement it.

Discussing the same thing over and over might not bring this project forward....

randx commented Jan 14, 2013

+1 to @MaddinXx


OK, well in that case it is clear. It would be nice to know why you don’t feel this is a useful feature, if you feel like explaining, but of course you’re not obliged.

For the rest of us with this feature request there are two options: either go with a project that already supports public views, such as Gitorious, or fork GitlabHQ. If anyone attempts the latter I’d be glad to hear about it. Maybe it can be a bit more light-weight fork, like a set of maintained patches.


I have basically solved this issue here: cjdelisle/ I am not a ruby expert and I don't know if this would be welcome as a PR on principle but if you want to host a public (or public to your intranet) repo then the code here should work. Note that it requires a guest user to exist in the db so if you already have a hosting server you'll need to execute db/fixtures/002_guest.rb
If you're setting up a new repo then just follow the instructions.
As always, no warrantee, I am especially unsure of the security aspects of this patch since I don't know ruby.



I already read entire thread and see @randx doesn't want this is core. But if somebody else does, may be via some "clean" hack, just drop a word here...


It seems that @cjdelisle's hack basically did the trick. But I don't have enough experience in Ruby to review this. It could be a first step if someone can do it.


@desaintmartin I am also new to ruby so not sure how @cjdelisle's hack will work. Specially when update comes.


@randx I respect your decision to not add this in code but can gitlab add support for 3rd-party plugins?

That might become standard way of developing/using features that shouldn't be part of core!


Based on what @cjdelisle did, I've made a fork - Public GitLab - which seems to work properly with 5.0 version.

ymauray commented Apr 19, 2013

Why insist on having anonymous file browsing ? GitHub is there for that. IMO, there is no difference between a "public gitlab" and github, so why not use github ?
Semi-public gitlab ? for intranet access ? A source tarball on the intranet should be enougth. If someone in your organization has the skills to "git clone http://..." then you can probably trust that person and create an account on gitlab for them.
I'm with @randx on this. No public browsing neccessary. But that's my 0.02 (insert your currency here) thought.


Simple: self-hosting. Control of infrastructure / data. Open source. Everything in the same website.
It has only advantages.

ymauray commented Apr 19, 2013

git is decentralized, you do have the same copy has the one on git hub (that's for the data). Github probably has all the infra you'll ever need. And, having everything outsourced means it's accessible even if your own site is down.

I'm not trying to convince you that github is better :) I'm just trying to convince myself that public browsing is a good thing for gitlab. So far, I'm still not convinced. Keep trying :)


Well, even if git is decentralized, having a system implementing PR is very good. Doing this on github means we don't own the "metadata" (PRs informations, reviews). It is just a matter of control.
Same fact for all the features of github / gitlab. A project doesn't only consists of its repo.

So far, gitlab allows to do all those things. But as maintainer of an open source project, I want people to be able to browse all those informations in anonymous mode (or they'll just not browse it if they have to register / ask someone an account).


A simple use case: I want issue tracker to have something like

That way users can voteup for features they want. With GitHub, its not possible for me to do anything which involves playing with code. Github is SASS (and closed-source).

With GitLab, I am free to play with code! I think GitLab should consider adding support for 3rd party modules.

That way, other-developers can create GitLab modules for requests like this.

zfdang commented May 8, 2013

is it possible to enable registered to view a project, without adding them explicitly?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment