5 ms·

I really wish GitHub only counted private repos that have more than one collaborator. If you are like me and have dozens and dozens of smaller repos that only y

I really wish GitHub only counted private repos that have more than one collaborator. If you are like me and have dozens and dozens of smaller repos that only you yourself work on, it makes the GitHub model a non-starter (and I'd love to be GitHub only, rather hosting my own server or using bitbucket).

drinchev 12y ago
Yeah. I pay for GitHub micro plan and indeed for my personal libraries I use bitbucket. It got a decent cli so I create the remote repo from my terminal. I would love to use GitHub more, but it becomes pricey for 20+ repos.
Ygg2 12y ago
How would Github differentiate between you and another collaborator that uses your logon details?
- ocdtrekkie 12y ago
  Good point "here's our Github account" would become a common solution for free private repos.
- girvo 12y ago
  How does BitBucket? They don't, and that's okay, there will always be those who push the boundaries of the rules, but most people will be honest.
- swah 12y ago
  What about is tiers based on storage?
- parennoob 12y ago
  Short of biometrics, there is no way any online service can differentiate between you and another person with whom you have shared your credentials. I'd like to hear counterexamples if you have any.
SoftwareMaven 12y ago
For a private repo with just yourself, why not use BitBucket? You don't need any of the social features of Github in that case.
- hashtree 12y ago
  Simply personal preference. I'd like to use the same supporting tools, UI, zero context switching between products, etc. Funny enough, I use some of the social features (issues/milestones/wiki) for project management, even for my own projects.
  - pdenya 12y ago
    Bitbucket provides those. I use it professionally because I like all my stuff in one place and that's where I keep my free private repos.
    - e12e 12y ago
      While bitbucket have some similar features to github (or vice-versa), the features are not the same. So if you want to use only one interface, and you prefer github for projects with multiple collaborators, bitbucket isn't really much of an alternative. Or, if you prefer bitbucket, but is also professionally involved in a number of projects hosted on github, you're still stuck with two interfaces (this is likely the case for pretty much everyone, as almost everyone will have a dependency of some kind hosted on github, and at one point or other you'll probably want to/have to deal with upstream). This would be true even if bitbucket was (subjectively) better: assuming one values having one consistent interface more than the "best" interface. I don't necessarily think github's interface(s) are better than bitbucket (or that either are good, for that matter) -- but I can certainly relate to the desire for having a consistent interface, to lower cognitive overhead. For me, that's the main argument for using Free/Open solutions, that one can self-host: one can guarantee consistency, which in turn can save time. There'll always be a balance between how much time is needed for managing such solutions, and between stability and stagnation. All that said, it's hard to deny that github managed to leverage the network effect much more dramatically than either self-hosted CVS, stand-alone bugzilla+wiki or Source Forge managed to do. (The latter probably because they didn't realize what they business model should have been: not ads, but charging for forge-services. Then again, AFAIK github isn't profitable, either, yet?).

drinchev 12y ago

Yeah. I pay for GitHub micro plan and indeed for my personal libraries I use bitbucket. It got a decent cli so I create the remote repo from my terminal. I would love to use GitHub more, but it becomes pricey for 20+ repos.

Ygg2 12y ago

How would Github differentiate between you and another collaborator that uses your logon details?

ocdtrekkie 12y ago
Good point "here's our Github account" would become a common solution for free private repos.
girvo 12y ago
How does BitBucket? They don't, and that's okay, there will always be those who push the boundaries of the rules, but most people will be honest.
swah 12y ago
What about is tiers based on storage?
parennoob 12y ago
Short of biometrics, there is no way any online service can differentiate between you and another person with whom you have shared your credentials. I'd like to hear counterexamples if you have any.

SoftwareMaven 12y ago

For a private repo with just yourself, why not use BitBucket? You don't need any of the social features of Github in that case.

hashtree 12y ago
Simply personal preference. I'd like to use the same supporting tools, UI, zero context switching between products, etc. Funny enough, I use some of the social features (issues/milestones/wiki) for project management, even for my own projects.
- pdenya 12y ago
  Bitbucket provides those. I use it professionally because I like all my stuff in one place and that's where I keep my free private repos.
  - e12e 12y ago
    While bitbucket have some similar features to github (or vice-versa), the features are not the same. So if you want to use only one interface, and you prefer github for projects with multiple collaborators, bitbucket isn't really much of an alternative. Or, if you prefer bitbucket, but is also professionally involved in a number of projects hosted on github, you're still stuck with two interfaces (this is likely the case for pretty much everyone, as almost everyone will have a dependency of some kind hosted on github, and at one point or other you'll probably want to/have to deal with upstream). This would be true even if bitbucket was (subjectively) better: assuming one values having one consistent interface more than the "best" interface. I don't necessarily think github's interface(s) are better than bitbucket (or that either are good, for that matter) -- but I can certainly relate to the desire for having a consistent interface, to lower cognitive overhead. For me, that's the main argument for using Free/Open solutions, that one can self-host: one can guarantee consistency, which in turn can save time. There'll always be a balance between how much time is needed for managing such solutions, and between stability and stagnation. All that said, it's hard to deny that github managed to leverage the network effect much more dramatically than either self-hosted CVS, stand-alone bugzilla+wiki or Source Forge managed to do. (The latter probably because they didn't realize what they business model should have been: not ads, but charging for forge-services. Then again, AFAIK github isn't profitable, either, yet?).