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

Introducing unlimited private repositories

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 662 posts

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#261

Post by zymhan »

Xylakant wrote: post #253
biztos wrote: post #247

I find it interesting that so many people here are unhappy with the change. Sure, prices will go up for a lot of organizations, but is $9/worker/month really a lot to pay for all the stuff GitHub offers? At Bay Area prices isn't that about 5 minutes of developer pay per month? For independent use it seems like a very positive change, in fact I'm guessing it's a direct challenge to GitLab. I was considering moving my…

> If I have a private repo and you have a private repo, and we each grant access to the other's repo so we can collaborate, do we now have two or four billing units? 4. Each of you has 2. One for yourself and one for the collaborator. Which answers the question of why some people are unhappy with the change: it punishes organizations that collaborate a lot.

> it punishes organizations that collaborate a lot.

Then shouldn't they be using the organizational plan?

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#262

Post by giovannibajo1 »

wlll wrote: post #230
hunvreus wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As stated at the end of my comment, a fair price is what they decide to charge. I simply don't like people to try and spin a price increase into a freebie.

You seem to be ignoring the comments to the contrary made on your original comment when stating this. Sure it's going to cost some orgs more, and it makes sense that it does. I'd wager that data at rest (lots of repos) costs a hell of lot less to run than active requests (lots of users). Personally my bill will be going down from $25 to $7, and I'm fine with that. My companies bill will be going down from $650/month…

The point we are raising is there is an entire category of companies (agencies / software house) where the price is going up dramatically (5x, 10x or more). This happens because of the choice of billing outside collaborators (even read-only ones).

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#263

Post by Xylakant »

odonnellryan wrote: post #256
smackfu wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't say they are employees.

So it's an open source project? I guess it can be a NFP that has closed-source repos. But why?

Doesn't have to be OS. It could be a commercial product that grants access to the source.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#264

Post by [deleted] »

biztos wrote: post #247

I find it interesting that so many people here are unhappy with the change. Sure, prices will go up for a lot of organizations, but is $9/worker/month really a lot to pay for all the stuff GitHub offers? At Bay Area prices isn't that about 5 minutes of developer pay per month? For independent use it seems like a very positive change, in fact I'm guessing it's a direct challenge to GitLab. I was considering moving my…

[deleted]

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#265

Post by Xylakant »

zymhan wrote: post #261
Xylakant wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I have a private repo and you have a private repo, and we each grant access to the other's repo so we can collaborate, do we now have two or four billing units? 4. Each of you has 2. One for yourself and one for the collaborator. Which answers the question of why some people are unhappy with the change: it punishes organizations that collaborate a lot.

> it punishes organizations that collaborate a lot. Then shouldn't they be using the organizational plan?

Yes, and that one charges per collaborator, not per user of the org.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#266

Post by friendzis »

bkeepers wrote: post #82
gelatocar wrote: post #62

What about companies like Epic Games that have few repos but many users? With their 2 private UnrealEngine and UnrealTournament repos they would have been paying $25 a month and under the new pricing structure will have to pay $815,913 per month... edit: That's based on what I can see as a UE4 subscriber, 2 private repos and 90657 users.

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 I understand this model correctly you fail to admit that there are at least 3 distinct types of users: developers (full access), users (read-only), issue trackers (wiki/issues only). And this model is geared toward a very specific type of organization with a relatively low number of users/trackers compared to developers.

Epic's example is just silly, but nevertheless the world is not black and white. I guess there should be a large number of organizations with multiple CI/CD agents each using distinct credentials for each target. Or examples of software houses requiring client access to issue tracker/wiki.

I guess GitHub analysed their data and made the best decision, but this really does not seem geared toward Enterprise in traditional sense of the word.

Some $vendors (just using familiar terms here) somewhat cover the gray areas pricing $x per unit, where unit is e.g. 2 users or 5 repos, whichever is higher.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#267

Post by dorfsmay »

eddieroger wrote: post #249
ProblemFactory wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I'd appreciate if their PR department didn't expect us to swallow this as a positive change. I don't have any numbers on how people structure their accounts on Github, but my feeling is that this is a positive change for the majority of Github users. Git encourages having many smaller repos for modules over massive single repos. $1/repo/month is fine for active projects, but gets expensive really fast if you wa…

Majority user, here. I already pay GitHub monthly because I have some repos that I want private. I'm a solo dev, only hacking on side projects that may or may not be something one day, but want to keep them private anyway. My bill is about to go down, and my benefits go up. All in all, I'm quite alright with this change, agree that it's positive. I get that it gets worse if I ever take on N number of developers, but…

I'm curious, as a solo dev, had you considered bitbicket?

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#268

Post by pilif »

sudhirj wrote: post #175

What's with all the negativity? This is really good pricing - all individuals now pay much less (a flat rate of $7), all small shops pay almost the same thing ($30 to $90 for 3 to 10 people). Both groups no longer need to think twice about creating repos, which has always been a huge pain that I've seen. I've even thought twice about microservices because the repo cost would be a pain. This will affect enterprises -…

> This will affect enterprises - but then they're either already on Github Enterprise or are used to per user pricing anyway

my organization currently contains 15 github users. 2 of which are used by error reporting tools to open bugs (Sentry, Crashlytics), one of which is used by Jenkins, 3 of which are outside contractor for which github now will get the money multiple times as companies move to the same billing method.

We had 9 repos on github (and about 20 smaller ones with less collaboration on a self-hoste gitolite installation), so we paid $300 per year.

Now I have unlimited repos of which I still only use 9, but now I pay $1300 per year, whereby 3 of these accounts I'm paying for aren't actually real people and another 3 of these accounts I'm paying for even though multiple other companies are also paying for them.

Aside of the nearly 5x increase in price, I think it's also unfair having to pay for practically unused bug-reporting-only accounts and having to pay for accounts that are already paid for by a multitude of other companies.

I don't think this is good pricing for me.

Also as this isn't just a moderate increase, but a whopping 5x increase, I also strongly consider moving back away to a self-hosted solution because increasing the price by 5x is breaking the trust put into github as a third-party provider.

Increasing the price a bit is fine. But 5x is excessive.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#269

Post by fps »

cstejerean wrote: post #171
hunvreus wrote: post #130

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…

Per user pricing makes a lot more sense than per repo pricing. This way larger organizations pay more money than smaller ones regardless of how they structure their code. This is a good deal for small organizations that like to have many small repositories (for internal libraries, utilities, micro services, modules, etc). Sure, it screws up a few models that rely on external collaborators to get access to private rep…

I work for a non-profit open source organization that collaborates on github (https://github.com/edx/) We have lots of people who aren't employees, but have signed a contributor agreement with our organization and contribute changes to our software. Our bill will go up from $200/month to over $2000/month with this new pricing. We can afford it (it's still a small fraction of our AWS bill) but it will force us to look at other alternatives. Github's code review tools are already pretty mediocre compared to other tools like gerrit, and we've long since moved off of github issue tracking due to lack of features compared to JIRA.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#270

Post by jnmandal »

fps wrote: post #269
cstejerean wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per user pricing makes a lot more sense than per repo pricing. This way larger organizations pay more money than smaller ones regardless of how they structure their code. This is a good deal for small organizations that like to have many small repositories (for internal libraries, utilities, micro services, modules, etc). Sure, it screws up a few models that rely on external collaborators to get access to private rep…

I work for a non-profit open source organization that collaborates on github ( https://github.com/edx/ ) We have lots of people who aren't employees, but have signed a contributor agreement with our organization and contribute changes to our software. Our bill will go up from $200/month to over $2000/month with this new pricing. We can afford it (it's still a small fraction of our AWS bill) but it will force us to lo…

If you are non profit and open source do you really need private repos?
Post reply on HN