Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub Hits 1,000,000 users

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: GitHub Hits 1,000,000 users

#61

Post by nspragmatic »

zyb09 wrote: post #46
Pyrodogg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Code availability from anywhere without having to manage your own repo server. Even for a single dev it might be worth it to be able to check out to your normal dev workstation, your laptop, and even on a totally random pc when the need arises. It also allows you to checkup on things through the web when a pc to checkout on isn't available.

You can use Dropbox as Git server if you wan't.

> wan't

In what implementation of the English language would that contraction make any sort of sense?

Re: GitHub Hits 1,000,000 users

#62

Post by rs »

xorglorb wrote: post #3

They provide a great service, and I use them all the time, but I don't like how their pricing scheme works for freelancers. You end up with a million small private repositories, and BitBucket has much more reasonable options.

Have a look at http://xp-dev.com which does not have any limits on number of projects

(disclaimer: I run it)

Re: GitHub Hits 1,000,000 users

#63

Post by scrrr »

ConstantineXVI wrote: post #44
Pyrodogg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Code availability from anywhere without having to manage your own repo server. Even for a single dev it might be worth it to be able to check out to your normal dev workstation, your laptop, and even on a totally random pc when the need arises. It also allows you to checkup on things through the web when a pc to checkout on isn't available.

A git server (at least on a personal scope) requires close to zero management. Fire up an Ubuntu box on Linode or such, `sudo apt-get install git`, boom, there's your server. A git server is nothing more than "filesystem + SSH + git". Not to say GitHub doesn't make it even more convenient, but the DIY option isn't exactly difficult either.

I agree. I have a 40 Euro per month server solely for things like a MediaWiki, backup storage and git repositories. Granted, it takes a little bit of Linux-administration, but that's a useful skill anyway.

And creating a new git repo just takes 15 seconds:

  cd /opt/git
  mkdir reponame.git
  cd reponame.git
  git init --bare
  cd ..
  chown -R username:username reponame.git
That's it. Having said that Github is obviously great (nay, awesome) for larger teams (comment features etc.) and, of course, open-source projects.

Re: GitHub Hits 1,000,000 users

#65

Post by eliben »

KVFinn wrote: post #5
xorglorb wrote: post #3

They provide a great service, and I use them all the time, but I don't like how their pricing scheme works for freelancers. You end up with a million small private repositories, and BitBucket has much more reasonable options.

Yeah, it's ridiculous. I have enough repos that I'd need the Platinum 200 dollar a month plan. All the repos are small and most are updated once or twice a year -- but the pricing is the same as if I had a whole team of people pushing to github every day.

Out of curiosity, why don't you keep several repos in a single repo as sub-directories? AFAICT, this should work quite well if the work done on those directories is unrelated to other work. Yes, there will be more revisions but merges shouldn't be more difficult because work is done on different parts.

Re: GitHub Hits 1,000,000 users

#66

Post by eliben »

damncabbage wrote: post #57
zyb09 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use Dropbox as Git server if you wan't.

Please don't ever do this, unless you wish to invite Dropbox's file syncing to destroy your repo. (See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1964347/mercurial-and-i-g... and http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1960799/using-gitdropbox-... )

The top-rated answer there warmly recommends using Git on top of DB.

Re: GitHub Hits 1,000,000 users

#67

Post by bad_user »

slig wrote: post #53
xorglorb wrote: post #3

They provide a great service, and I use them all the time, but I don't like how their pricing scheme works for freelancers. You end up with a million small private repositories, and BitBucket has much more reasonable options.

RepositoryHosting.com I've been there for years and I couldn't be happier. The only downtime was when AWS went down for everyone.

I just have my own Github repository on an EC2 instance that I rent. I can have how many repositories I want with GB of data, whatever for something like $12 per month.

Re: GitHub Hits 1,000,000 users

#68

Post by pestaa »

eliben wrote: post #65
KVFinn wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's ridiculous. I have enough repos that I'd need the Platinum 200 dollar a month plan. All the repos are small and most are updated once or twice a year -- but the pricing is the same as if I had a whole team of people pushing to github every day.

Out of curiosity, why don't you keep several repos in a single repo as sub-directories? AFAICT, this should work quite well if the work done on those directories is unrelated to other work. Yes, there will be more revisions but merges shouldn't be more difficult because work is done on different parts.

Exactly what I was thinking, but this'd kill the convenience of GitHub anyway.

Re: GitHub Hits 1,000,000 users

#69

Post by dasil003 »

eliben wrote: post #65
KVFinn wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's ridiculous. I have enough repos that I'd need the Platinum 200 dollar a month plan. All the repos are small and most are updated once or twice a year -- but the pricing is the same as if I had a whole team of people pushing to github every day.

Out of curiosity, why don't you keep several repos in a single repo as sub-directories? AFAICT, this should work quite well if the work done on those directories is unrelated to other work. Yes, there will be more revisions but merges shouldn't be more difficult because work is done on different parts.

This is intended usage in svn, but it just feels so very very wrong in git. If I want to transfer a project to someone else, I want to be able to give them the whole history. Granted, I'm sure there's some relatively easy way to replay a subdirectories commits to a new repo (with all the sha1s changed obviously), but I would prefer to actually pay Github more money, or else just use some other hosting rather than do something like this.

Re: GitHub Hits 1,000,000 users

#70

Post by FlowerPower »

Pyrodogg wrote: post #13
icebraining wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what's the point of having those on Github anyway? GH is great for teams or for sharing your code with 'the community', but I don't see what it buys you for private, single developer projects over a directory in your drive(s).

Code availability from anywhere without having to manage your own repo server. Even for a single dev it might be worth it to be able to check out to your normal dev workstation, your laptop, and even on a totally random pc when the need arises. It also allows you to checkup on things through the web when a pc to checkout on isn't available.

Don't you have even an old spare computer to put aisde in the attic/closet for your personal ssh/web/git serving needs?
Post reply on HN