97
Deploy without GitHub/GitLab
under review
Log In
Activity Feed
Sort by
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!
Anurag Goel
under review