Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I guess this is the next step to reduce costs after the brakes were put on the "let's delete old OSS repositories" leaked plan.

For comparison, I think GitHub just have a cap of 100MB on any single individual file, plus:

> We recommend repositories remain small, ideally less than 1 GB, and less than 5 GB is strongly recommended. Smaller repositories are faster to clone and easier to work with and maintain. If your repository excessively impacts our infrastructure, you might receive an email from GitHub Support asking you to take corrective action. We try to be flexible, especially with large projects that have many collaborators, and will work with you to find a resolution whenever possible.

Which is a bit wishy-washy, but sounds like there's room for discretion / exceptions to be made there rather than a hard cap at 5GB.




The difference being that the value Microsoft gets from GitHub isn't its revenue, it's its influence. Whereas Gitlab is just another corporate software suite.


> the value Microsoft gets from GitHub [is] influence

Don't forget easy access to all the code to train Copilot, the AI code launderer. With my tinfoil hat on: even the private repo edition!


I don't have the diffs in front of me, but I'm fairly sure this predates the MS acquisition by quite a while.


Prior to MS acquisition, Github free offering was really bad: No private repos, no CI pipeline and I think there was not real "team".


Well, Github (free or not) had no CI until Github Actions, which was after the acquisition. Integration with things like Travis were already there and free.


That's a weird definition of bad. It was free and it worked as advertised without providing every imaginable feature.


Do you have a source for this? I vaguely remember GitHub starting to offer private repos when GitLab started getting popular.


Github raised the 5 repo limit to infinite in 2016 https://github.blog/2016-05-11-introducing-unlimited-private...

And made private repos free after the acquisition https://github.blog/2019-01-07-new-year-new-github/


> I think GitHub just have a cap of 100MB on any single individual file

There's a 100MB limit on the size of a push, which also limits the size of a any single git object (i.e. file) to 100MB too. However GitHub supports LFS for large files, and their documentation says to use LFS for files over 100MB:

https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/working-with-files/m...

> GitHub blocks pushes that exceed 100 MB.

> To track files beyond this limit, you must use Git Large File Storage (Git LFS).

https://docs.github.com/en/billing/managing-billing-for-git-...

According to my own GitHub account ( https://github.com/account/billing/data/upgrade?packs=1 ), I'm paying $37/yr for 600GB LFS storage on top of my existing GitHub Pro subscription.


> I'm paying $37/yr for 600GB LFS storage on top of my existing GitHub Pro subscription.

I'd love to know how you managed this! I'm paying $60/yr for 50GB, which feels exorbitant.


My account is still on some now-discontinued pricing tier, so I guess I got grandfathered-in or something.


GitHub has a repo size limit of 100GB (https://web.archive.org/web/20200521202931/https://help.gith...) and you'll get a warning if you exceed 75GB


> Github had a repo size limit of 100GB

The source you link is 2 years old.


Can you provide a source to the contrary? I’m fairly certain it’s still in place.


Just check the unarchived version of the site OP linked: https://help.github.com/en/github/managing-large-files/what-...


It's no longer mentioned in the current version, that's why I linked to the archive.

Yes, the information is 2 years old, but since nobody has any proof of the contrary, I'd say it still stands.

(Sorry, my upload is too slow to just do a quick check and see if I can indeed push a 100gb repo, maybe someone else can try?)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: