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

571–580 of 662 posts

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#571

Post by unfunco »

jglovier wrote: post #529
unfunco wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Failed might have been a strong and stupid word, it's worked for GitHub. The new model just doesn't work for our organisation, and that's not the fault of GitHub but it does cause us some headaches.

Sorry to hear this change is frustrating for your team. If the new model doesn't work for you, can stay on the old structure. We're not automatically migrating anyone, so you can stay on the old plan. If we ever do decide to phase out the legacy structure completely, you'll still have 12 months from that point before you have to move over. (We've updated the blog post to reflect that clarification, too)

Thank you!

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#572

Post by NetStrikeForce »

parsnips wrote: post #535
NetStrikeForce wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess he's not paying his employees 900% market rate, why would he pay 900% market rate for GitHub instead of BitBucket? Just trying to point that your logic doesn't check out. I personally like the new pricing, but as a non-paying user of GitHub and BitBucket... I'll stick to BitBucket for my private repos :) I guess they don't give a damn as I'm still not paying either :)

You believe bitbucket represents the market?

What's so broken in Bitbucket that's not worth at 1/9th the price of Github.com?

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#573

Post by marssaxman »

qudat wrote: post #563
taytus wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I use bitbucket too and I can't understand why people are still paying github when bitbucket does exactly the same and is free.

These services are not the same, not since I last checked. Someone forks your repo, makes a change and then submits a PR. I can't pull their changes down until they give me read access to their forked repo. I found a lot of these little annoyances to be a big reason to switch to github. Not to mention their UI pales in comparison to github, which I think says a lot.

I've never understood why all the fork/change/commit/push/pull-request fol-de-rol is necessary. Why can't we just pull, hack, and submit a "push request"?

But I guess I've never understood why everyone else seems to be OK with a build/repo system where it is even possible to break the build at all; it's always seemed to me like it should be set up so you push to a testing stage, which merges to master if the build succeeds and the tests pass, but otherwise fails and sends you an error log. Never seen a build system set up that way, though, and the couple of times I've looked into the matter it seemed like I'd basically have to code it up myself, which was more effort than I was willing to put into it.

With such an architecture, the idea of a "push request" would just be a manual OK step in addition to the automated test validation step.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#574

Post by sequoia »

mjlee wrote: post #564
fps wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the software is AGPLv3'd, and run by hundreds of educational organizations around the world. Those organizations typically contribute changes back via Github. Non-employees don't contribute to our private repositories. We gain quite a bit from maintaining a large open source community, but it's not "free labor."

From the announcement: "These users do not fill a seat: Outside collaborators with access to only public repositories "

oh yeah. That's probably why I assumed "collaborators" must have had access to private edx repos.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#575

Post by random_rr »

heartbreak wrote: post #258
pilif wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of these users are used for various error-reporting tools to report issues as. I'm not paying these any salary, nor are they actual, you know, people. Some of these users also aren't developers but just need access to the bug tracker. Some of them are outside contractors for whom multiple companies are now paying the github tax. But sure. $1.3K isn't much, but it's 5x more than what we had to pay previously and…

$1,380 is so small an amount that when I worked at BigCorp I could expense that and more each month without approval. No one cares about a thousand bucks.

Found the guy who's never worked for a small business.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#576

Post by mmaunder »

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 had no idea about any of the above, but for our team this is awesome. I love that they're doing this because limiting repo's based on price is a serious PITA - it really is the way GH described is which is that every time a user wants a new repo, they have to ask billing/accounting for permission. For us and any company that uses github heavily, which is pretty much everyone in tech, this is awesome!

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#577

Post by ciokan »

sytse wrote: post #445
ciokan wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any API on this service?

Sure, see http://doc.gitlab.com/ce/api/

The interface is horribly (painfully) slow. On the API side...any of the params I post when hitting the create project endpoint are not taken into consideration. With the following data posted to the API I still get public builds, issues not enabled, wiki not enabled and so on: {'issues_enabled': True, 'description': None, 'visibility_level': 0, 'public_builds': False, 'wiki_enabled': True, 'snippets_enabled': True, 'merge_requests_enabled': True, 'name': 'testfoo'}

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#578

Post by tomschlick »

skywritergr wrote: post #430
pilif wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 me…

It sounds like it would be a big help if github offered unlimited read-only/bot accounts. Not sure how technically feasible is that but it doesn't sound impossible.

Or as someone mentioned above, if they went the Slack route of not charging for users who don't push/pull code in a 30/60 day period. That way you could still have collaborator users (issues, PRs, etc) and only pay for the users who actually code.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#579

Post by doomtop »

sequoia wrote: post #508
fps wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> We have lots of people who aren't employees, but have signed a contributor agreement with our organization and contribute changes to our software. So you have volunteers, working on your proprietary, private software for free. The labor is free & now you're complaining that you'll have to pay a per-free-laborer fee for the infrastructure to manage all these free-laborers? I hope I'm missing something here...

Why are you assuming that the labor is free? And regardless if it is or isn't, how is that even relevant? GitHub has no idea how much or how little a contributor is paid for their contributions.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#580

Post by hrez »

ascendantlogic wrote: post #317
unfunco wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The sheer irony of this statement is staggering. Github is a business and their goal is to make money. If you have 5x the number of people doing dev work on your code, then by definition you are a "larger" organization from their vantage point. Why wouldn't you pay more?

"Why wouldn't you pay more?" comments are rather annoying. Why would you pay more if you don't have to? Bitbucket caps their price at $200/month for unlimited users. That would pay for only ~25 users on github. Basically they are 9 times as expensive per user as bitbucket.
Post reply on HN