⌘K
NextBlock™ CMS Just submitted our application for **NextBlock CMS**! 🚀 NextBlock is an open-source, full-stack CMS framework built natively for **Next.js 16 (App Router + RSC)** and **Supabase (PostgreSQL JSONB)**. We’ve focused on: * **Zero-Config 1-Click Deploy:** Automated Supabase database migrations on build. * **100/100 Lighthouse Defaults:** Tiptap visual editor renders PostgreSQL JSONB directly into React Server Components, eliminating client hydration overhead and HTML sanitization taxes. * **Cortex AI & Native MCP:** Model Context Protocol server support (`/api/mcp`) for deterministic, schema-constrained block synthesis. * **GitHub:** https://github.com/nextblock-cms/nextblock * **Live Sandbox:** https://cms.nextblock.dev Looking forward to the review process and collaborating with the Vercel DX team! 🧱
Axyl1410 Hi! I applied for the Summer 2026 Vercel OSS Program, but I’m not sure whether my application was successfully submitted. I also didn’t receive a confirmation email. Is there any way for applicants to verify whether their application was received, or is there normally no confirmation email after submitting the form? I’d like to avoid submitting a duplicate application if my original submission went through. Thanks!
Amy Egan If you reached the final page that says, "Thank you," then your application was received :) You'll get an email about a week after applications close letting your know whether or not your project was accepted
Jumasduleba Update: Starlink support has replied. They said they cannot investigate further on their side at this stage and advised us to contact Vercel to review possible provider-side configuration or routing issues. This does not establish which network is responsible, and we do not have a confirmed resolution. Starlink provided this geofeed for your reference: https://geoip.starlinkisp.net/feed.csv They also suggested sharing the current public IP of the affected Starlink connection. We have not yet confirmed that address, so it is not included here. Please let us know how to provide it privately if needed. Could Vercel review reachability to 216.198.79.1 from Starlink and advise on a supported remedy? Our earlier tests showed that temporary overrides to alternate Vercel IPs worked with normal TLS validation. We have kept the assigned DNS record unchanged pending guidance. Please also confirm whether an alternate A record is officially supported for these existing domains, including domain verification and TLS renewal.
Jumasduleba Nova evidência observada hoje pela conexão Starlink: o acesso direto a realidadeoriginal.com.br continua resultando em timeout. Em algumas tentativas, após pesquisar “Realidade Original” no Google e clicar no resultado, o navegador exibiu o conteúdo textual da página, mas sem a formatação normal e sem imagens. Ao recarregar essa mesma página, voltou a ocorrer timeout completo; novas tentativas de acesso direto também deram timeout. O mesmo site funciona normalmente por outra conexão de internet. Não foi possível determinar por que o clique pelo resultado do Google permitiu esse carregamento parcial, portanto não afirmo que se tratava de conteúdo antigo ou em cache. Essa alternância pode indicar uma falha intermitente na entrega do documento e/ou dos recursos estáticos. Poderiam verificar, se possível, edge/CDN/routing, as requisições a `/_next/static/`, imagens e demais assets, além de possíveis diferenças envolvendo IPv4/IPv6 ou POP/edge para tráfego proveniente da Starlink? Posso fornecer novos diagnósticos se necessário.
Jumasduleba Additional controlled diagnostics from 5 Oct 2026 (same computer; no DNS or site changes): • DNS returned the same A record, 216.198.79.1, on both Vivo and Starlink. • On Vivo, a fresh IPv4 request to 216.198.79.1:443 completed TCP in ~42 ms, validated TLS successfully, and returned HTTP 200 in ~184 ms. x-vercel-cache: HIT; x-vercel-id: gru1::pxml6-1791230521419-14ac4202719a. • The Vivo browser HAR contained 44 requests with no failures (21 HTTP 200, 23 HTTP 304), including HTML, CSS, JavaScript, images, and Next.js RSC responses. • On Starlink, direct IPv4 connection attempts to the same 216.198.79.1:443 timed out before TLS or any HTTP response. The latest browser HAR recorded 16 RSC requests across multiple site sections, all net::ERR_CONNECTION_TIMED_OUT after about 21 seconds; that HAR did not expose a remote IP or response headers. • Over the same Starlink connection, a temporary --resolve test to 64.29.17.130 for the same hostname completed TCP/TLS and returned HTTP 200; tested HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and image resources also returned successfully. • On some Starlink attempts via a Google result, the page appeared with CSS formatting but some images were missing. Reloading later timed out. We have not established why this happened and are not attributing it to Google or caching. • A review of recent code/deploy changes found no change that explains a network-dependent failure. The production site works normally on Vivo. These results point to a connectivity problem on the path between Starlink and 216.198.79.1:443, before HTTP. They do not establish whether the issue is within Starlink, an intermediate interconnection/peering path, or Vercel ingress/edge. The successful Vercel request IDs above identify successful responses only and do not reveal which edge was reached by failed attempts. Could you investigate Vercel ingress/edge reachability and any peering/connectivity issue for traffic originating on Starlink and destined for 216.198.79.1? The same project/hostname works from Vivo at that IP, and 64.29.17.130 works from Starlink. Please advise what additional non-sensitive diagnostics would help and what supported remediation is available. I am not attaching raw HAR files because they can contain browser/session data.
Mathieucrcs You're clearly not the only ones... https://community.vercel.com/t/unexpected-build-cpu-charges-without-advance-spending-alerts/50206#post_1
airstairjp I’m the author of the related post linked above. My Build CPU charges also spiked in September: USD 0.58 in May, USD 28.66 in June, USD 1.93 in July, USD 8.19 in August, and USD 402.18 in September (before credits). I haven’t established that unwanted branch builds caused my charges, but I also received no advance warning before they accumulated. I hope Vercel reviews the builds you tried to prevent and gives both cases a path to manual billing review.
Pixelfoundry yeah, we are using vercel since 2023.... once upon a time the story was different.... and we tried to disable the automatic builds, then it kicked back in again... this is very frustrating
