I feel as though this announcement caught GitLab by surprise and it scrambled to put a strong message out there that it already had similar offerings in place. At the same time, however, I don't think their choice of phrasing is the most appropriate. It'd probably have been better handled more subtly.

But does it matter at all? If I host critical code somewhere, it has to be available, and GitLab's uptime history[0] is so much poorer compared to GitHub's[1], with service disruptions and degradations being more common, and far more severe. I don't understand why GitLab doesn't focus on improving the quality of their service. It's not like this is new.

Edit: I feel like I came across as very sour, and I am. But I do like GitLab. I've actually used its CI and Docker image repository in the past and prefer how everything is in one place. I've even written fairly a fairly comprehensive article outlining a deployment pipeline leveraging their tech, but I just don't like service disruptions, especially when they're normalized.

[0]: https://status.gitlab.com/pages/history/5b36dc6502d06804c083...

[1]: https://www.githubstatus.com/history