4 ms·

My Qt/C++ cross-platform FOSS Wallpaper Engine project[1] currently uses 47gb of storage. This is because I compile for every platform and store the artifacts f

My Qt/C++ cross-platform FOSS Wallpaper Engine project[1] currently uses 47gb of storage. This is because I compile for every platform and store the artifacts for 4 weeks. Not sure what I will do in the future, because having older builds around to try out without recompiling is always nice. [1] https://gitlab.com/kelteseth/ScreenPlay https://gitlab.com/kelteseth/ScreenPlay

TheRealPomax 4y ago
That's... an incredible footprint. Surely even if there was no size limit, deduplicating the build output would have made a lot of sense?
- TheRealPomax 4y ago
  Having said that: if you run a public open source project that has requirements beyond what a regular free user gets, then why not apply to the open source program[1] (which you almost certainly already qualify for) so you're not space constrained? Quoting the requirements: --- Who qualifies for the GitLab for Open Source Program? In order to be accepted into the GitLab for Open Source Program, applicants must: - Use OSI-approved licenses for their projects: Every project in the applying namespace must be published under an OSI-approved open source license. [2] - Not seek profit: An organization can accept donations to sustain its work, but it can’t seek to make a profit by selling services, by charging for enhancements or add-ons, or by other means. - Be publicly visible: Both the applicant's GitLab.com group or self-managed instance and source code must be publicly visible and publicly available. --- [1] https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/community-relations/opensource-program/#-gitlab-for-open-source-program https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/community-relati... [2] https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
shakow 4y ago
I guess that having old artefacts is nice, but expecting 47GB of storage for free per repo seems ludicrous to me. Maybe it's a generational question, but I would be pretty happy with 1-2GB (i.e. git history, and one artefact per platform).
- spyremeown 4y ago
  >but expecting 47GB of storage for free per repo seems ludicrous to me. I agree with this. This move makes perfect sense. I think GitLab does a lot already for the people that don't pay for the service.
- thayne 4y ago
  47GB would be less than 3 cents per month for object storage in backblaze b2. And most repos won't have anywhere near that much storage. It isn't zero, but afaik, GitLab's main competition doesn't have a similar limitation.
john_cogs 4y ago
GitLab for Open Source provides OSS projects with Ultimate tier benefits, and includes 250GB of storage and 500GB transfer/month. Please apply to join the program here: https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/ https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/
- TheRealPomax 4y ago
  And note that even if you're just "a random someone with a bunch of open source repos", you almost certainly already qualify for this program: --- In order to be accepted into the GitLab for Open Source Program, applicants must: - Use OSI-approved licenses for their projects: Every project in the applying namespace must be published under an OSI-approved open source license. [1] - Not seek profit: An organization can accept donations to sustain its work, but it can’t seek to make a profit by selling services, by charging for enhancements or add-ons, or by other means. - Be publicly visible: Both the applicant's GitLab.com group or self-managed instance and source code must be publicly visible and publicly available. --- [1] https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
  - thayne 4y ago
    > Every project in the applying namespace must be published under an OSI-approved open source license Well I guess I would have to split out my one little private repo I use for my dotfiles into a separate account in order to qualify.
  - oy6amn8RDPw8w9n 4y ago
    tfw GitLab admits that their own product isn't open-source ;) ("can’t seek to make a profit by selling services, by charging for enhancements or add-ons")
    - jffry 4y ago
      That isn't Gitlab saying those are the requirements for being "open-source", it's just their requirements for who they are willing to give a generously large amount of free services to. I think it's quite fair to say you're not going to give free services out to open source projects that are seeking to fundraise beyond covering their costs.

TheRealPomax 4y ago

That's... an incredible footprint. Surely even if there was no size limit, deduplicating the build output would have made a lot of sense?

TheRealPomax 4y ago
Having said that: if you run a public open source project that has requirements beyond what a regular free user gets, then why not apply to the open source program[1] (which you almost certainly already qualify for) so you're not space constrained? Quoting the requirements: --- Who qualifies for the GitLab for Open Source Program? In order to be accepted into the GitLab for Open Source Program, applicants must: - Use OSI-approved licenses for their projects: Every project in the applying namespace must be published under an OSI-approved open source license. [2] - Not seek profit: An organization can accept donations to sustain its work, but it can’t seek to make a profit by selling services, by charging for enhancements or add-ons, or by other means. - Be publicly visible: Both the applicant's GitLab.com group or self-managed instance and source code must be publicly visible and publicly available. --- [1] https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/community-relations/opensource-program/#-gitlab-for-open-source-program https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/community-relati... [2] https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

shakow 4y ago

I guess that having old artefacts is nice, but expecting 47GB of storage for free per repo seems ludicrous to me. Maybe it's a generational question, but I would be pretty happy with 1-2GB (i.e. git history, and one artefact per platform).

spyremeown 4y ago
>but expecting 47GB of storage for free per repo seems ludicrous to me. I agree with this. This move makes perfect sense. I think GitLab does a lot already for the people that don't pay for the service.
thayne 4y ago
47GB would be less than 3 cents per month for object storage in backblaze b2. And most repos won't have anywhere near that much storage. It isn't zero, but afaik, GitLab's main competition doesn't have a similar limitation.

john_cogs 4y ago

GitLab for Open Source provides OSS projects with Ultimate tier benefits, and includes 250GB of storage and 500GB transfer/month. Please apply to join the program here: https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/ https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/

TheRealPomax 4y ago
And note that even if you're just "a random someone with a bunch of open source repos", you almost certainly already qualify for this program: --- In order to be accepted into the GitLab for Open Source Program, applicants must: - Use OSI-approved licenses for their projects: Every project in the applying namespace must be published under an OSI-approved open source license. [1] - Not seek profit: An organization can accept donations to sustain its work, but it can’t seek to make a profit by selling services, by charging for enhancements or add-ons, or by other means. - Be publicly visible: Both the applicant's GitLab.com group or self-managed instance and source code must be publicly visible and publicly available. --- [1] https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
- thayne 4y ago
  > Every project in the applying namespace must be published under an OSI-approved open source license Well I guess I would have to split out my one little private repo I use for my dotfiles into a separate account in order to qualify.
- oy6amn8RDPw8w9n 4y ago
  tfw GitLab admits that their own product isn't open-source ;) ("can’t seek to make a profit by selling services, by charging for enhancements or add-ons")
  - jffry 4y ago
    That isn't Gitlab saying those are the requirements for being "open-source", it's just their requirements for who they are willing to give a generously large amount of free services to. I think it's quite fair to say you're not going to give free services out to open source projects that are seeking to fundraise beyond covering their costs.