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

461–470 of 662 posts

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#461

Post by danpalmer »

I think the new pricing structure makes a lot of sense, however is awkwardly limiting in some respects that GitHub might not have considered.

We have essentially 2 classes of GitHub user on our organisation - developers, and non-developers. While our devs use GitHub all the time (and therefore are worth the $25 a month for the development team), our other users might edit a specific few config files, or jobs pages (for example) once a month - paying $9/month each seems quite overpriced.

We want to be an open company, one that doesn't keep secrets from employees, one that doesn't create unnecessary barriers to productivity, or have unnecessary process, so giving GitHub access to everyone in the company who wants it is important to us - this stops us from reasonably doing this. As a result, we likely won't be switching to the new pricing structure for as long as possible, which is a shame, because it would be nice to not have to think about private repos.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#462

Post by striking »

therealmarv wrote: post #231
TAForObvReasons wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you clarify? Why is Bitbucket "terrible"?

Bitbucket is ok for private repos. I think private repos are relatively secure there because Atlassian has much of reputation to loose if there is a security breach. Another plus for Bitbucket is the integration with Jira and other Atlassians tools. Beside that plus points I will rather go to GitLab.com (more features, better UI and integration with 3rd party) but my trust in private repos is lower there than on Bitb…

All those sites are secure. Actually, between the three, GitHub has had the most vulnerabilities reported, like that one time someone got administration privileges over the entire website... yet people still trust them somehow.

If you're working on government contracted stuff or something like that, where you need perfect and utter secrecy, you could self-host a GitLab instance. Which is $0, compared to GitHub Enterprise.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#463

Post by apocalyptic0n3 »

arnvald wrote: post #40

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…

We're at 394 repos and 13 active users (with 32 disabled users) on our self-hosted GitLab install. All repos are private as well. We're a software agency that usually has 15-20 different projects being actively developed. It adds up quick

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#464

Post by karim »

Cozumel wrote: post #123
matthewmacleod wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, come on. It's OK to dislike this change, but "BitBucket is superior in every respect" and "price gouging" are far from objectively obvious.

Well look at the price changes people posting here are facing, ones from $2k a year to $8k, that's gouging!

These people are outliers --- the average developer with a handful of repos is probably going to save money with the new pricing.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#465

Post by maaaats »

mcphage wrote: post #351
maaaats wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that you have to pay for GitHub.

Which I already was. Now I'm paying less, and getting more.

But since they now are limiting the number of contributors to your private repos, you might as well use BitBucket for free.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#467

Post by dimino »

arnvald wrote: post #40

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…

For a 50 person group, $430 is peanuts, it's just peanuts.

I'm sorry, I just don't feel for these people, this is getting upset about the $0.10 charge for butter when you paid $10.00 for the popcorn.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#468

Post by rdancer »

geofft wrote: post #378
cloverich wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't be keeping api keys or other sensitive information in git at all . And please note -- if you do remove it from git, it will be available in your git history so that needs to be taken care of as well (should the repo ever become public -- a common "exploit").

Git is just a format for storing data with a record of how that data changed. Saying you shouldn't store it in git seems rather like saying you shouldn't store it in btrfs. It's true that if your btrfs disk image becomes public, the data is recoverable, and it's hard to reliably scrub deleted files from btrfs, but that doesn't mean it's the wrong tool for a filesystem (or a repo) that stays entirely internal. Saying…

> Saying you shouldn't store it in git seems rather like saying you shouldn't store it in btrfs.

Best practice is to avoid storing secrets in plaintext, or sharing secrets between users/roles. Yours isn't an argument in favour of git, it is an argument against btrfs.

(I don't have any problem with storing passwords in that way, I'm just pointing out why it's not the best practice.)

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#469

Post by leonroy »

eightbit wrote: post #365
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…

> but is $9/worker/month really a lot to pay for all the stuff GitHub offers? You make it sound like they're curing cancer. What does GitHub really offer above and beyond the other providers? As an example, their PR reviewing systems sucks balls. It chokes on larger PRs (250 files!? Really?). Also, with files which have been essentially replaced, the diff can become so large that GitHub won't even show it, and since…

Curious what you think of GitLab and Bitbucket?

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#470

Post by alfg »

arnvald wrote: post #40

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…

We have about 300+ users and 100+ repos. We moved to Bitbucket because it would be too expensive to keep using Github. Looks like the pricing change would make it even more expensive for us.

I personally also use Gitlab for private side project repos and only use Github now for open source projects.

Post reply on HN