321–330 of 664 posts
This announce is not clear to me, as to what really changed. Can I have protected branch in my private repository now?
No, it looks like protected branches are not part of the "Free" tier. It's introduced in the Teams pricing and up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compliance with the spirit is the objective. Sometimes the spirit and the letter differ for any number of reasons (many of which are completely reasonable). People tend to get pretty upset when someone is very clearly complying with the letter while flying in complete opposition to the spirit, and it's not always an easy fix.
In that case, it sounds like the letter needs to be fixed. It's not fair to expect people to follow an ephemeral ideal of what the rules are rather than what they're told the rules actually are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So far Microsoft isn’t taking customers away from AWS. They’re just expanding the total market. But I do wonder if AWS will try to buy gitlab.
Gitlab states it wants to go public this year https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/being-a-public-company/
I don't know how much control their external board members have, but if an offer came in, the board may be able to force acceptance instead of going public.
Hi HN, I'm the CEO of GitHub. Everyone at GitHub is really excited about this announcement, and I'm happy to answer any questions. We've wanted to make this change for the last 18 months, but needed our Enterprise business to be big enough to enable the free use of GitHub by the rest of the world. I'm happy to say that it's grown dramatically in the last year, and so we're able to make GitHub free for teams that don'…
Google haven't built up too much of a user base for GCP's Cloud Source Repositories service yet (my speculation), so I wonder if they're viewing Gitlab as an acquisition target. TBQH, I don't see Gitlab lasting too much longer without an acquisition event of some sort, when facing up against this sort of Microsoft-backed feature funding. And I say this as a bigger user of Gitlab than Github (primarily because of the…
Gitlab need only wait before GH starts adding Azure-first and Azure-only features, as they are wont to do. At that point they can just offer "the same but for any other cloud provider". Amazon, Google, or IBM, might even throw them a bone.
In the long term we'd probably see the cloud providers create their own social revision control projects, and then fuck around with private APIs so the quality of the integration between their cloud service and their source control leads you to stay locked in.
Even in that scenario it could make sense for there to be a 'neutral' party like gitlab, though.
I acknowledge this is my own imagination and I've no claim to know the future! :)
Bit disappointed that this isn't an "Everyone Wins" pricing change. The new plan is a downgrade from the old one. For example, it will only include 3000 Github Action minutes. The old plan included 10000. The next plan up would be > 2 * old price. Source: https://github.com/pricing vs http://web.archive.org/web/20200406010552/https://github.com...
Hi HN, I'm the CEO of GitHub. Everyone at GitHub is really excited about this announcement, and I'm happy to answer any questions. We've wanted to make this change for the last 18 months, but needed our Enterprise business to be big enough to enable the free use of GitHub by the rest of the world. I'm happy to say that it's grown dramatically in the last year, and so we're able to make GitHub free for teams that don'…
This now includes Iran, Syria, and Crimea. Bravo
Hi HN, I'm the CEO of GitHub. Everyone at GitHub is really excited about this announcement, and I'm happy to answer any questions. We've wanted to make this change for the last 18 months, but needed our Enterprise business to be big enough to enable the free use of GitHub by the rest of the world. I'm happy to say that it's grown dramatically in the last year, and so we're able to make GitHub free for teams that don'…
That is a class act right there.
Now, if you would open source github...
I kid. I have zero hope that that will ever happen.
It has always been bizarre (IMO) that arguably the most popular open source dev forge, er, hub, is closed and proprietary. But what can you do?
Remember when all those FOSS devs sent an open letter to github whining about that and begging for attention? https://github.com/dear-github/dear-github (Ironically, they "signed" it by filling out a Google docs spreadsheet! As opposed to, say, patching a file.)
Utterly bizarre.
And now they have done it again, apparently because GitHub serves ICE: https://github.com/drop-ice/dear-github-2.0
They "call upon GitHub to: Immediately cancel your contract with ICE ; Commit yourself to a higher ethical standard with all of your business dealings ..." [in writing]. But they stop short of threatening to leave if GitHub doesn't comply with their demands.
Leaving aside the politics of ICE, and the strangeness of talking to "GitHub" like it's a single person, it seems to me that without taking some action (like moving to e.g. Srht or self-hosting a DVCS hub) that this is just posturing.
Anyway, congratulations on sucking more air out of the room of FOSS development. In the words of the aforementioned, undersigned, concerned peasants, excuse me! users, of GitHub:
> We still believe in GitHub as a platform, as a place to help the open source community make the world a genuinely better place. Please, step up and join us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We reached out and were told we would need to upgrade to the enterprise version. (This was probably 5 months ago before they announced a few startup friendly offerings)
I'm curious why you need the SOC2 report itself instead of some sort of signed statement of compliance. The details of the SOC2 don't seem like they should be important?