110
Deploy without GitHub/GitLab
under review
Log In
Activity Feed
Sort by
k
kowat74770
:+1: I would very much like this as well. Coming over from Heroku, I wish Render offers something as convenient as this:
heroku create -a my-app
heroku git:remote -a my-app
git push heroku main
r
render
For static sites, would love to be able to just copy over completed builds as a zip. This would also allow for "patching" of static sites when the majority of the content does not change.
I'm surprised this isn't a much easier use case than linking into customer Git repos, which in addition to being a security concern, is more "cool" than useful.
G
Geoffrey Callaghan
if you want to add static website forms to render this is helpful
r
roger
Yes this is absolutely a required feature. It leaves us vulnerable to single point of failure for code repos if it ever gets compromised. Why also would we share our entire repository with render. I love the render services and have used it for other projects, but in this day and age where everything is getting compromised, we really need the ability to have more control over this. Some of us have clients who are extremely paranoid and for good reason. None of the files on github are encrypted by default unless you use git-crypt or something like that. This is really sad. The tech support response to my question is just answered with a very poor bedside manner. You guys love to alienate devs.
R
Rob Aldred
Without support for self hosted gitlab, having no way to just push code to render like you can with Heroku, we can't even begin to try migrating render.
r
render
I'd like to be able to point a static site to a Sourcehut repo rather than use GitHub or GitLab. I know there's probably no API to listen for pushes, but even having a "deploy" button on Render to pull and deploy would be acceptable, or better yet, give me a git remote to push to.
d
dillon.hafer
This would be great, I have many clients that take weeks to approve a github integration (corporate clients are even more weirded out because the person who manages the company github account has no idea who I am) which means I cannot deploy any code until an arbitrary time, causing many delays.
O
Oliver Marks
support for things like gogs and gitea would be nice, or a way to deploy if you have your own private ci
Anurag Goel
I
Ian Beck
I originally requested this via Slack. I discovered Render.com when the DigitalOcean App Platform failed to meet my needs. The main thing that the DO App Platform has that Render lacks is S3-compatible object storage. Having that available as an additional service on Render would be incredibly helpful.
Minimum viable
* No version control integration required (should be able to upload files via SFTP, S3 spec, or at minimum a CRUD-style API)
* Served by the same CDN as static sites
Living the dream
* S3 compatible object store. This would be fantastic because it means that there's a whole ecosystem of tools available for uploading and managing files, and of course services running on Render would be able to manipulate files in the object store using standard S3-compatible libraries. Which in turn means that services could dispense with persistent file storage for a lot of uses, allowing easier horizontal scaling.
Anurag Goel
Ian Beck: you can set up your own S3 compatible object store on Render easily! https://github.com/render-examples/minio
Anurag Goel
Looking at your use case, I'll merge this into another issue that matches the MVP use case.
I
Ian Beck
Anurag Goel: Right, I could of course host an S3-compatible object store as a service, backed by a disk. However, economically that doesn't make any sense:
* I'm paying for CPU that I'll likely have no need of, and at the same time limited to the same bandwidth caps that are applied to API services (which is lopsided; an object store needs very little CPU and a lot of bandwidth).
* I'm presumably no longer behind a CDN for my assets, unlike a static site or dedicated object store (maybe that's incorrect? I couldn't find any documentation on whether service responses are served from a CDN in the same way that static sites are).
And most damning, consider a simple cost comparison to DigitalOcean (who with their App Platform is one of your main competitors, IMO, and is working hard to catch up to your service feature set): DO Spaces object store with 250 GB storage and 1 TB egress bandwidth: $5/mo. Render S3 service if it hits the same limits: $7/mo + $.25 x 250 (disk of same size) + $.10 x 900 (GB overage) = $159.50. Ouch.
I don't think this feature request should have been merged; I could upload data to an S3-compatible service backed by a disk outside of version control very easily, but that's the absolute least of the problems that I want to see addressed by my feature request.
Edit:
granted the cost comparison may not be apples-to-apples; DO has some screwy bandwidth handling that might affect their Spaces offering in conjunction with the App Platform, and I was looking at the default Spaces pricing for that comparison.Anurag Goel
Ian Beck: we actually have an existing feature request for managed object storage: https://feedback.render.com/features/p/cloud-object-storage
I
Ian Beck
Anurag Goel: Well, that gets a solid thumbs up from me!
Load More
→