3 ms·

Github's payment plans don't work out well for a team that's doing lots of small repositories. My team is pretty small (5 devs) and we easily have 150+ reposit

by bowlich 11y ago

Github's payment plans don't work out well for a team that's doing lots of small repositories. My team is pretty small (5 devs) and we easily have 150+ repositories for different packages that all get wrapped into our main product. Github charges per private repository and 125 repositories maxes out github's organizational plans. Hence, we are currently on bitbucket. The team also didn't want to have to make a business justification everytime someone wanted to fork a repository or throw something together experimental. We would rather just be free to create as many repositories as we please and not have to concern ourselves with the question of whether it should be a public or private repo.

marcc 11y ago
You don't have to pay for private forks.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- pc86 11y ago
  What does that matter? They still have over 150 repositories.
  - avalaunch 11y ago
    It matters because he specifically mentions that the team "didn't want to have to make a business justification everytime someone wanted to fork a repository".
    - nicarus1984 11y ago
      Yes, but that doesn't imply they're justifying a financial cost. It could be that they need to justify creating a new repo and figuring out how/where to host it.
    - yebyen 11y ago
      They wouldn't have to, if they were on Github's maxed-out plan already. There is no higher tier. They're already paying the most. (hypothetically)
      - pc86 11y ago
        The maxed out organizational plan ($200/mo) is still only 125 private repositories. GitHub is just not financially feasible for small organizations with many small, private repos. For small teams like mine (3 + an occasional contractor) that have close to 200 repositories of closed-source code, $200/mo is laughable, particularly when we can host all of that on BitBucket for free because we never go above 5 users.
- bowlich 11y ago
  My bad, but we'd still run into the issue for new repositories.

by bowlich 11y ago

marcc 11y ago

You don't have to pay for private forks.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
pc86 11y ago
What does that matter? They still have over 150 repositories.
- avalaunch 11y ago
  It matters because he specifically mentions that the team "didn't want to have to make a business justification everytime someone wanted to fork a repository".
  - nicarus1984 11y ago
    Yes, but that doesn't imply they're justifying a financial cost. It could be that they need to justify creating a new repo and figuring out how/where to host it.
  - yebyen 11y ago
    They wouldn't have to, if they were on Github's maxed-out plan already. There is no higher tier. They're already paying the most. (hypothetically)
    - pc86 11y ago
      The maxed out organizational plan ($200/mo) is still only 125 private repositories. GitHub is just not financially feasible for small organizations with many small, private repos. For small teams like mine (3 + an occasional contractor) that have close to 200 repositories of closed-source code, $200/mo is laughable, particularly when we can host all of that on BitBucket for free because we never go above 5 users.
bowlich 11y ago
My bad, but we'd still run into the issue for new repositories.