alt Hacker NewsI think this would cut out a lot of the mindless commit activity.
Charge $1/month per repo. If your project isn't worth that, run your own git or use another free forge.
Replies
You are way too optimistic. What will realistically happen is they charge $2 per month and the quality doesn't change. The $2 per month gross will go where it always goes: launches, exec salaries, shareholders.
I think GitHub leans on this free repos thing a lot for getting new users though. Like I could see people just moving to GitLab
GH isn't good enough to charge that much for its core services. 90% of its user base would just find better or cheaper alternatives, and the only ones remaining would be legacy enterprise codebases that are just impossible or too expensive to migrate.
What about $1/year per private repo?
80/20 rule would suggest that you don't need to apply $1 to all users, just those who create an excessive number of AI slop repos or make an excessive number of commits.
Could do similar for GH actions usage.
The incentives that creates are really bad: it encourages users to organize their code across the smallest number of repos, and I'd bet anything that larger repos are disproportionately more expensive for GitHub than smaller ones. It's very possible that a per-repo charge would make things worse.