Istn't that effectively shooting themselves in the foot?

https://reddit.com/r/programming/...

That's so idiotic that it reeks of management. Not every project needs constant updates - some are simply done.

Why host on GitLab in the first place if you know they will trash your project once it's done?

They probably came to the conclusion, that they are hosting too much mature cornerstone libraries which could trick parts of the public to assume GitLab to be a viable GitHub alternative.

Naturally, that has to be avoided at all costs.

@Fast-Nop exactly my thoughs, that literally discourages devs to host their finished projects on there.

I mean to be fair, it only is applied to free tier, but still is an annoying thing because it forces small/hobby devs to migrate to something else, or pay up.

And in the end it's small/hobby devs that host your little weird driver for some obscure hardware, that doesn't need updates.

someone will proly create an automate thing that keeps git fresh or commit random thing right before the set time.

@useVim If you know that you aren't welcome at a site, you shouldn't try to keep using that site if there are viable alternatives. It will get worse. It always does.

I haven't seen any statement of GitLab itself regarding that matter so I would take it with a grain of salt.

@TheSilent it's true and...

...update (via gitlab Twitter): repo's will not be deleted, but rather, thrown into a slower (cheaper) storage

Honestly I could understand deleting the repos if they went by account logging in, rather than activity on the repo itself.

Deleting repos means that you consider that some projects are never "done" or are stable in the sense they aren't going to add more crap in that they don't need. Sure there might be dependency upgrades needed, but let's consider the repo doesn't have any dependencies to it, it still wouldn't need to be updated for a long time.

@AlgoRythm ah, so this is all the fuss around cheaper storage? How petty of someone to shout at GitLab for this... I hope nothing actually gets deleted. This would suck!

@vintprox no, the original leaks from internal memos had suggested that the original plan would be to permanently remove the repos after 1 year. However, they never even had a chance to officially announce it before backlash was so severe that they changed their mind (supposedly, who knows if the original plan was really to delete stuff. No official word afaik)

@AlgoRythm thanks for informing us!

@AlgoRythm AFAIK I think it was mentioned somewhere that the code to run the feature was already implemented into the source code for like the past 6 months. Obviously it got leaked and everyone pointed out the major flaw in it and painted it as a non-technical executive's idea (because they apparently have the best ideas, ofc).

@dontbeevil oh yeah, just think about the resulting fallout 😂

Apparantly they discarded the idea as the article says. Unenthusiastic yay!