Atm, it's not aiming to be a production-grade system. Indie hackers, hobbyists, probably do not need that to start working on their side project. Also, I'm thinking of provide a hosted version of it, but not know. I want to concentrate on the features now.
When I saw it described as a "heroku and netlify alternatives", I assumed it was meant to be a production-grade system, that's what those words mean to me.
If those are wrong expectations, you might consider changing your marketing.
I don't know what up with people these days. There seems to be a trend people are building heroku clones. Heroku is more than buildpack and dynos. Just because you have a github integration does not mean you do not have the right to call yourself a heroku alternative. Whole point of heroku is getting started without any setup. Now, If I have to acquire a VM, setup the infrastructure and then setup one these "alternatives", the onus is on me. I am responsible for 80% of the task heroku does. At that point, I would rather own it 100%. There is lot of stuff that goes on behind the scene goes into Heroku or Netlify. Managed Kubernetes with a PaaS experience comes very close of heroku alternative however, why would you switch to something like that when you are content with Heroku. Kubernetes setup will become a beast in itself.
I think heroku's alternative business plan should be suing all the companies/people calling themselves publicly calling themselves heroku alternative or a better heroku and delivering subpar projects.
If lots of people are having expectations that you didn't meant to give them and don't want to meet, that could get inconvenient for everyone including you, regardless of whether you want to blame it on a "them problem". So it might make sense to adjust the marketing to better set expectations. But that's your call, you can also just deal with it knowing that it's their fault for misunderstanding you.
