Introducing unlimited private repositories

Re:Introducing unlimited private repositories by Xylakant on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @05:49AM (#11673891)

That doesn't mean that customers can't be annoyed being sold for stupid. The release announcement forgets to mention that collaborators are now costly - either a stupid oversight or part of the positive spin.

A good marketing department should display things in a positive fashion, but they should also strive to be honest, so they're not loosing credibility.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Introducing unlimited private repositories by dommer on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @05:59AM (#11673937)

"loosing credibility" is subjective in this case. Some orgs/people will be better off, some won't.

I recall GitHub doing some extensive research on what their customer based wanted. This is most likely the outcome of that research.

If I were to migration our org. over we would be worse off. Even with that I don't think this move is disingenuous. Poorly thought through perhaps?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Introducing unlimited private repositories by Xylakant on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @06:55AM (#11674144)

> Even with that I don't think this move is disingenuous.

I never said that I consider the move disingenuous. Almost no change will unilaterally benefit everybody. I dislike the communication that reads as if the change is unilaterally beneficial - where it clearly is not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Introducing unlimited private repositories by dommer on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @07:22AM (#11674242)

I didn't say you did. Well, I don't think I did. Either way, we agree it wasn't disingenuous. I'd also agree this change won't be beneficial to all.

And GitHub is also allowing everyone to make a choice. "...you'll have at least 12 months notice before any mandated change to your plan."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Introducing unlimited private repositories by spraak on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @06:33AM (#11674073)

I see it is honest and very positive and supportive

[ Parent | on HN ]