5 ms·

I don't understand this reaction and the reaction of many people in this thread. To me it looks like choosing beggars, maybe I'm missing something. Travis-CI w

by Znafon 6y ago

I don't understand this reaction and the reaction of many people in this thread. To me it looks like choosing beggars, maybe I'm missing something. Travis-CI was giving a ton of computing power for free, no questions asked. That was incredibly generous but had certainly a gigantic cost and it powered many OSS projects for a long time. Yet how can we complain that they can throw money around, some says that it will reduce the number of new users that discover the service and the number of paying client in the long run (many are saying this but are not paying users anyway) but it's not like the number of potential clients is unlimited anyway and at what point it becomes to costly to get the last ones. Why would this be a "private equity" thing, you can't always loose (or invest to get more users) money. Does your company sponsors the infrastructure of that many OSS projects? Would it be willing to cover the costs of all servers used by OSS projects for Travis?

jpalomaki 6y ago
Not sure if would work, but it might be worth trying to have some kind of "donate CI time for this project" button on the platform. Could be onetime payment or a recurring donation (charged together with whatever payments you have for the platform).
- cactus2093 6y ago
  There’s a lot of things Travis ci could do. This is a great idea to help offset their costs, they could also have made their platform better to bring in more paying companies. They haven’t at all kept up with competitors as tooling and build processes have evolved in the past 9 years (namely easy to use docker-native test environments, and parallelization options for big codebases). I agree with the parent comment, it’s bizarre to blame this on the new acquiring company and to be mad about this development. Travis ci has been asleep at the wheel for many years, and projects have been benefiting from it with huge amounts of free compute for years, but now the free money has run out.
danpalmer 6y ago
TravisCI bought goodwill and marketing of their paid offering by offering free builds for open source products. Effectively removing or severely restricting that benefit will essentially lose the goodwill and word of mouth marketing. It's true that to criticise someone giving you something for free is being a "choosing beggar", but that's not really what's happening here. TravisCI has bought something with their free offering, so it's fair that they lose that when they revoke that offering.

by Znafon 6y ago

jpalomaki 6y ago

Not sure if would work, but it might be worth trying to have some kind of "donate CI time for this project" button on the platform. Could be onetime payment or a recurring donation (charged together with whatever payments you have for the platform).

cactus2093 6y ago
There’s a lot of things Travis ci could do. This is a great idea to help offset their costs, they could also have made their platform better to bring in more paying companies. They haven’t at all kept up with competitors as tooling and build processes have evolved in the past 9 years (namely easy to use docker-native test environments, and parallelization options for big codebases). I agree with the parent comment, it’s bizarre to blame this on the new acquiring company and to be mad about this development. Travis ci has been asleep at the wheel for many years, and projects have been benefiting from it with huge amounts of free compute for years, but now the free money has run out.

danpalmer 6y ago

TravisCI bought goodwill and marketing of their paid offering by offering free builds for open source products. Effectively removing or severely restricting that benefit will essentially lose the goodwill and word of mouth marketing. It's true that to criticise someone giving you something for free is being a "choosing beggar", but that's not really what's happening here. TravisCI has bought something with their free offering, so it's fair that they lose that when they revoke that offering.