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

Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 131 posts

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#61

Post by nicce »

Aeolun wrote: post #53
fendy3002 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are severely underestimating how complicated it is to host a private server, even if they go to self hosted gitlab which essentially the same. The amount of downtime, sudden server crash, problem with SSL with NAT, setting up gitlab runner, upgrading, etc. You'll need someone experienced enough and maybe even a dedicated infra role to handle those things

> You'll need someone experienced enough and maybe even a dedicated infra role to handle those things Depends on where you are are doing it. AWS makes it ridiculously easy to hand off basically all aspects of hosting. Set up once, use forever.

AWS does not go to this category. You are literally paying for them to handle these matters.

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#63

Post by foxbee »

I understand their intentions for doing this - i don't agree with them. My initial reaction was 'sleep mode' may be better and alert people to either log in and "activate" their repo.

Once again, i don't agree with deleting dormant projects, I'm just curious what an alternative solution is?

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#64

Post by mro_name »

a peer-based possibility to search in code. That's direly needed. Currently all takes on such are centralised, be it Microsoft's github, gitlab, STOF whatnot.

I once thought DOAP might be a thing, but a search engine bringing up code results (needs not be constrained to it) would be really nice.

Problem: funding. Maybe like this https://nlnet.nl/project/Gitea/

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#65

Post by aaaaaaaaaaab »

malikNF wrote: post #28
xupybd wrote: post #23

Gitlab is great but they don't make money out of me and I'm not sure why. There is no reason for me to go to a paid account. There is no way that I could justify the cost to my boss. We have 5 slots for the team and only need 3. There is nothing that we'd gain from paying. If they said tomorrow that we had to pay $60 a month to get what we're getting now, then I'd say to my manager we need to pay for this or we won't…

>If they said tomorrow that we had to pay $60 a month to get what we're getting now 0 to 60 overnight sounds like a very disastrous thing for a company to do, like a big ol bait and switch. I would immediately stop using that company and find alternatives, and I am guessing it will be the same for a lot of people too. At 60usd a month for 5 people, a developer should be able to buy a few servers(~4) for less than $30…

$60 is like 30-60min at a developer’s hourly rate.

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#66

Post by yieldcrv »

can we just normalize software being done and finished?

there are plenty of things that don't require dependencies and don't encounter breaking changes. the javascript community's problems, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders don't represent software development.

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#67

Post by bmitc »

foxbee wrote: post #63

I understand their intentions for doing this - i don't agree with them. My initial reaction was 'sleep mode' may be better and alert people to either log in and "activate" their repo. Once again, i don't agree with deleting dormant projects, I'm just curious what an alternative solution is?

Is saving static data really a huge cost sink for them? Seems kind of weird to have a business model of storing and handling highly dynamic data only to come down hard on the easiest use case of the product.

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#69

Post by jSherz »

xupybd wrote: post #23

Gitlab is great but they don't make money out of me and I'm not sure why. There is no reason for me to go to a paid account. There is no way that I could justify the cost to my boss. We have 5 slots for the team and only need 3. There is nothing that we'd gain from paying. If they said tomorrow that we had to pay $60 a month to get what we're getting now, then I'd say to my manager we need to pay for this or we won't…

The annualised billing winds me up - I wanted to build an integration with GitLab recently and needed group level webhooks. ~$20 / month but I'd have to pay for a full year upfront that I'd then not use.
Post reply on HN