4 ms·

According to the article, "A single comment, commit, or new issue posted to a project during a 12-month period will be sufficient to keep the project alive." Do

by twh270 4y ago

According to the article, "A single comment, commit, or new issue posted to a project during a 12-month period will be sufficient to keep the project alive." Do the projects you're referring to also typically have no comments/issues? If so, that does suggest this is a bit too big of a hammer and perhaps they should add that cloning is also sufficient to keep the project alive.

Pakdef 4y ago
Let me clone all repos...
bdcravens 4y ago
A single $5 VPS could add a space to READMEs across the entire Gitlab universe once a year
- grepfru_it 4y ago
  ...so what you're saying is that a service to keep your gitlab project active is worth $5/yr? BRB
  - rascul 4y ago
    Even if it was $5/month they might get subscribers for that. Currently the next level above $0/month is $19/month. I could justify paying GitLab $5/month because I could justify hosting my own repos and related things on a $5/month VPS. I can't justify going from $0/month to $19/month for my usage. https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/ https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/
cge 4y ago
Yes. As a researcher, I have a number of such projects, and use a number of such projects (fortunately, it seems, on Github). In some cases, the repositories go for over a year without new commits, issues, or comments, but they do get downloaded, used, and cited, and comments tend to get made privately. In others, they're simply niche research code that can go for some time without being used, but does end up being useful later. In one case, a niche repository of some personal code I put up on a whim, with 3 commits, no comments, and the latest commit being made in 2014, had a graduate student find it and adapt it for their use a few months ago. With package managers that pull directly from online repositories, it's also possible to have a repository of something small and stable that has no activity other than being cloned often. I realize that I probably have the ability to get a free premium Gitlab account as an academic, but one of the reasons I ended up using Github instead was that Github's process for that was very simple and almost instant, whereas Gitlab's was frustrating and had weirdly pushy salespeople involved to the point that I abandoned the process.

by twh270 4y ago

Pakdef 4y ago

Let me clone all repos...

bdcravens 4y ago

A single $5 VPS could add a space to READMEs across the entire Gitlab universe once a year

grepfru_it 4y ago
...so what you're saying is that a service to keep your gitlab project active is worth $5/yr? BRB
- rascul 4y ago
  Even if it was $5/month they might get subscribers for that. Currently the next level above $0/month is $19/month. I could justify paying GitLab $5/month because I could justify hosting my own repos and related things on a $5/month VPS. I can't justify going from $0/month to $19/month for my usage. https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/ https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/

cge 4y ago

Yes. As a researcher, I have a number of such projects, and use a number of such projects (fortunately, it seems, on Github). In some cases, the repositories go for over a year without new commits, issues, or comments, but they do get downloaded, used, and cited, and comments tend to get made privately. In others, they're simply niche research code that can go for some time without being used, but does end up being useful later. In one case, a niche repository of some personal code I put up on a whim, with 3 commits, no comments, and the latest commit being made in 2014, had a graduate student find it and adapt it for their use a few months ago. With package managers that pull directly from online repositories, it's also possible to have a repository of something small and stable that has no activity other than being cloned often. I realize that I probably have the ability to get a free premium Gitlab account as an academic, but one of the reasons I ended up using Github instead was that Github's process for that was very simple and almost instant, whereas Gitlab's was frustrating and had weirdly pushy salespeople involved to the point that I abandoned the process.