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

591–600 of 662 posts

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#591

Post by rdancer »

hrez wrote: post #580
ascendantlogic wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Have you considered that if you self-hosted on a repurposed desktop machine running off solar panels, with unpaid interns doing maintenance, you could cap it at $0, and save on the heating bill during winter?

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#592

Post by bsimpson »

pilif wrote: post #268
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 me…

Are the bug-only accounts reporting against your private repos? Public contributors are still free.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#593

Post by a2m »

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…

just use gogs. https://gogs.io

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#595

Post by erikb »

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 think before it was $5, now it's $7? Three times? Anyway... both below $10, so no problem I see here, young padawan.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#596

Post by puddintane »

connorshea wrote: post #499
gpm wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

gitlab.com runs EE though doesn't it? You only need to pay if you want self hosted EE.

It does, yes :)

Great to know, thank you! However our requirements were offsite and must be why I never knew about the free EE hosted on GitLab!

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#597

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

fps wrote: post #278
jnmandal wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are non profit and open source do you really need private repos?

We have about 100 private repos at the moment, including internal tools, branding related components, infrastructure code and pre-release stuff that we're not developing in the open. We may just move those to AWS code commit, gitlab or gogs and switch back to a free org.

Your first comment stated the problem was your large number of non-employee contributors. You said in another comment that non-employees don't contribute to your private repos.

I don't see the problem here. Your employees will have access to your private repos, and the volunteers will not (thus you won't be paying for their seats).

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#598

Post by notimetorelax »

emidln wrote: post #439
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…

I've used Bitbucket in the past. They charge per-user[1], and their pricing is significantly better free for 5 users and then once you eclipse 5 users it's $1/user up to 100 users and then $200 for unlimited users. [1] - https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing

I'd be more careful with any offering from Atlassian. They recently increased significantly Crucible/FishEye prices. IIRC unlimited plan used to start at 200 users, now they added more tiers but kept the prices of the original tiers.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#599

Post by X-Istence »

marssaxman wrote: post #573
qudat wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 su…

Gitlab has the ability to do that.

http://doc.gitlab.com/ce/workflow/merge_when_build_succeeds....

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#600

Post by marssaxman »

ak4g wrote: post #583
marssaxman wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 su…

It's not necessary, it's a waste of development time and easily the biggest big-picture collective failure of our software engineering profession of the last decade. It easily beats out anything from the $foo.js world and the ongoing low-level security nightmare of web application development, because git, and more importantly, unnecessarily complex and error-prone git workflows have seen adoption across all kinds of…

I have been using git for years and I still find its interface completely inscrutable. I have given up trying to learn it in a way that makes it make sense, and simply use a handful of everyday commands I've memorized by rote and look everything else up when I need it. I can't think of any other piece of software I actually use which has such a messy, non-predictable interface. Even 'make' eventually succumbed to rational analysis when I finally managed to suppress my nausea long enough to dig in and learn it as though it were a real language.
Post reply on HN