141–150 of 662 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitbucket is terrible though, so what does it matter?
Can you clarify? Why is Bitbucket "terrible"?
Its slow as heck.
The UI is clunky.
The 'projects' made it hard to find anything and broke bookmarks.
... but the downtime is the killer. Last week was the last one.
Now I have to pay for external collaborators? Are you kidding me? We are a small team of 5, but making softwares for other, I'll have to move away from github with the new pricing, we have nearly ten people per repository that might just be exec who never accessed the repo but must have access to it.
git is distributed. You can give access to a mirror of your git repo for execs that don't access the repo or contribute to it. They don't need to be github users, they just need git access to an url. If github is still convenient for you, there is a solution to avoid paying for this users. It only really makes sense to have developers added as github users (of course, it used to be convenient to just ask them to be g…
For small private projects, gitlab.com has had unlimited private repos for $0/month for a while now.
I see absolutely no reason why one would pay GitHub for private repositories when there is Bitbucket, or much better alternative to GitHub altogether - GitLab.
A small comparison: Team | Cost Before | Cost Now 1 repo, 5 users | $25 | $25 1 repo, 10 users | $25 | $70 11 repos, 5 users | $50 | $25 11 repos, 10 users | $50 | $70 5 repos, 50 users | $25 | $430 50 repos, 5 users | $100 | $25 50 repos, 50 users | $100 | $430 I'm not sure how common are organizations with few users and large number of repose - I guess software houses that keep old projects (for maintenance and fut…
In some ways I can see the ability to have fewer users and more repositories suited towards consultancies (specifically web development). Where there are a lot of projects and customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that now GitHub is 9x more expensive than BitBucket (and for a team under 5 developers, GitHub is $25 vs. BitBucket's $0).
Bitbucket is terrible though, so what does it matter?
1. Take a gazillion dollars in funding on an over-hyped valuation, 2. Go through significant organizational changes that end up with the departure of a co-founder (and more suits in the building). 3. Notice that a significant segment of your growth (VC-funded startups) are running out of money. 4. Switch to a user-based pricing to generate more revenue for investors, but spin it as a freebie "Hey! Look at the cool un…
What to you is a fair price and why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are reaching out to customers that are in unique situations such as the one you're mentioning here. If you have questions about how the pricing changes affect you, please don’t hesitate to contact support@github.com.
If you need to give Epic Games special treatment just because they have a huge amount of outside collaborators, then your pricing model is broken. It would be more fair to charge $9/mo per organization member + $1/mo per active outside collaborator (somewhat similar to AWS CodeCommit) than to charge for every single active and inactive member and collaborator equally. Maybe throw in a 50% bulk discount for active out…
Not sure why the topic of fairness even comes to the discussion, this is a business not a charity.
I am not sure why people would like stuff to be priced per repo. It is a fairly unintuitive model for me and is a huge problem when you need to go an explain to the finance team that you need to spend more because you "created more repos"... say wut? Spending per user is a very clean way of pricing.