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

481–490 of 662 posts

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#481

Post by robalfonso »

lox wrote: post #108
giovannibajo1 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both Travis and Circle automatically install a deploy key into the project. It doesn't require additional machine users.

That's fine if you have a single repo, but CI normally needs to access lots of different repos. GitHub's documentation describes why you need machine users for anything but the most trivial deployment. https://developer.github.com/guides/managing-deploy-keys/ It's also what GitHub does internally.

Yep, same here. Our build system uses multiple repos (and now you can have as many as you want!)

This is shortsighted on their part, I hope they pay attention.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#482

Post by krschultz »

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…

It's not basic math, it depends entirely on your code structure. In a world of 'microservices' repos proliferate very quickly. My last company has hundreds of repos, but only dozens of engineers. The pricing model was becoming a major pain point for us.

As an individual this model makes way more sense for me. I pay the same as before but get unlimited private repos? Awesome.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#483

Post by krschultz »

unfunco wrote: post #259
thijsc wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For us as a small team it's a very positive change. Our monthly bill just went from $100 to $25.

And for us it's negative, our monthly bill has just increased by hundreds of dollars. In theory, our respective organisations could be in competition, and GitHub has just increased our monthly bill to subsidise your organisation, instead of shouldering the financial burden themselves.

If your bill increased by hundreds of dollars then you have many employees. You really can't afford $9 per user a month? This came up in the Jetbrains pricing arguments. What the hell are you paying software engineers if $9 or $20 a month matters. My employer has paid me more than $9 in the time I've been trolling this thread to respond to people.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#484

Post by krschultz »

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…

At Gilt we had a ratio of ~10 repos per engineer. #microservices.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#485

Post by tn13 »

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…

It is sensible pricing model.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#486

Post by nodesocket »

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…

I'm getting really tired of engineers complaining about pricing and being cheap (I'm a engineer + founder). User pricing is a much better model for organizations (scales as you do in terms of headcount).

And for individual accounts this is a win, win, no matter what. A flat $7 get's you unlimited repos.

GitHub is not out to get you. GitHub's "PR" department is not trying to trick you. GitHub builds and maintains a crazy powerful tool that you probably use hours a day. It should cost money, and honestly it should cost more if you ask me.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#487

Post by ccannon »

chucksmash wrote: post #307
ccannon wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually 2500% more expensive for the first 5 users. Github will never learn.

I think for the first five users the price is capped at $25 total ($5/user).

I think you are correct. Boy that is a confusing way to word it on Github's end.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#488

Post by emkman »

mangeletti wrote: post #294
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…

Wow, you actually just made me think of something that could have been a great change for GitHub. Rather than completely limiting private repos in their old pricing model, they could have limited "active" repos, and created an archive feature, where archived repos were not available via Git, but still existed as backups and in case you ever wanted to make them active again. I do, however, believe that the new, per-us…

They already had this in their old model. If you downgrade your plan and have more repos than allowed, they don't force you to delete them. They archive them and if you ever need to access them and make them active again, you just upgrade, for at least the month. Seemed pretty fair.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#489

Post by pfooti »

vacri wrote: post #178
nxzero wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to products like Salesforce, GitHub seems cheap to me. What to you is a fair price and why?

> GitHub seems cheap to me At $9/user/mo, github is 900% more expensive than the $1/user/mo direct competitor BitBucket. BitBucket uses brackets rather than pure scaling, but their most expensive option - 101 users require the $200 unlimited accounts plan - is still only $2/user.

Bitbucket seems to be at least in large part a subsidized loss-leader to the rest of the Atlassian infrastructure. And, legit question: how do you feel about Jira?

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#490

Post by hc000 »

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…

wow... our bill will be 8x.... $xxx to $6xxx
Post reply on HN