The link you yourself share features many comments, including by GitHub themselves, that this wasn't a new limit. They publicised the change earlier in the year.

As the product manager pointed out https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13229461 and as a Quora answer from June also reveals https://www.quora.com/What-are-bandwidth-and-traffic-limits-... the GitHub pages limits were public since at least June.

Yep, but we only noticed it on Dec 21.

Great, but that's very different to your original statement of "GitHub Pages was limited about 3 days go".

True, that was wrong, it should have said we learned of it 3 days ago.

Hi sytes. Thanks so much for this. I was active on the thread trying to get it added to CE, and it makes a big difference.

One thing GL is still missing in its licensing model is a good story for my usecase. I run a GL install that's open to the public so users can report bugs in my software, but there are only 2 real "internal" users. I picked up 50 "users" last month, who just made an issue or two and drove away.

The current model forces me to choose either CE (no paid features for anyone) or EE ($1950/mo). That is what drives some of the disconnect on features like Pages, I'm not going to pay five figures a year for no matter what's in EE.

But if I could pay $300 a year, and get either some paid features, or paid features for some users, that would be pretty easy. Then there is something to do in this situation besides complain that everything isn't free, and creates more opportunities to get invested into GitLab.

As long as there's a $25,000 gap between price tiers you will have these cases where people are flamewarring about whether some feature makes it into CE.

Just to clarify, our pricing [0] is per year. So the cost for 50 users is $1950 a year, $162,50 a month for Enterprise Edition starter.

We have been thinking about a model that would allow us a more smooth ramp from CE to EE, hence the change to EE starter and Premium. However, this doesn't mean certain attractive features might still land in paid tiers.

I'd love to get more feedback on this.

[0]: https://about.gitlab.com/products/

Right, but your licensing is per user per year. I add 50 NEW users in a month. Each of them use the product for about 20 minutes, but I believe I would need to license them for an entire year.

If you disable the accounts of users they no longer count towards your license. So you could consider deactivating accounts that have been inactive for more than a month. Anyway, feel free to get in touch with sales@ our domain to discuss the options.

It sounds like your issues should be hosted on gitlab.com. I bet you can mirror your repos to gitlab.com and just use it for issues.

Edit: GitLab even has a setting that lets you seamlessly integrate an external issue tracker. [0]

[0] https://docs.gitlab.com/ce/integration/external-issue-tracke...

The primary reason I moved things off GitHub was to self-host. If I wanted someone else to host it I would probably go back to GitHub.

I cannot speak about the licensing, but I can suggest you an alternative: host CE for public access and mirror your repositories there, and have your EE version for internal use only.

Ironic tho, isn't it?

Github limits are for big high traffic pages, and you open the door for smaller projects/orgs.

Obviously a good thing. Just odd the the GH decision aimed at a different segment of the market provoked this.

In any case, kudos.