Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub Actions now supports CI/CD, free for public repositories

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 239 posts

Re: GitHub Actions now supports CI/CD, free for public repositories

#141

Post by structural »

clinta wrote: post #91
snitko wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a horrible trend. CI should not be tied to version control. I mean we all have to deal with it now, but I'd much rather have my CI agnostic and not have config files for it checked into the repo. I've browsed through the article you linked to, one of the subtitles was "Realizing the future of DevOps is a single application". Also a horrible idea: I think it locks developers into a certain workflow which is hard…

I'm an operations guy, but I think I have a different perspective. The developers I work with don't have to think about CI/CD, but the configuration still lives in the repo, I'm just a contributer to that repo like they are. Having CI configuration separate from the code sounds like a nightmare when a code change requires CI configurations to be updated. A new version of code requires a new dependency for instance, t…

Having CI configuration inside the codebase also sounds like a nightmare when changes to the CI or deployment environment require configuration changes or when multiple CI/deployment environments exist.

For example as a use case: Software has dozens of tagged releases; organization moves from deploying on AWS to deploying in a Kubernetes cluster (requiring at least one change to the deployment configuration). Now, to deploy any of the old tagged releases, every release now has to be updated with the new configuration. This gets messy because there are two different orthogonal sets of versions involved. First, the code being developed has versions and second, the environments for testing, integration, and deployment also change over time and have versions to be controlled.

Even more broadly, consider multiple organizations using the same software package. They will each almost certainly have their own CI infrastructure, so there is no one "CI configuration" that could ever be checked into the repository along with the code without each user having to maintain their own forks/patchsets of the repo with all the pain that entails.

Re: GitHub Actions now supports CI/CD, free for public repositories

#143

Post by jbrantly »

kkapelon wrote: post #130
pas wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Azure Pipelines is currently considered the best CI/CD solution. (For example see GitLab issues about how users would like GitLab to improve theirs.)

Last time I checked Azure Pipelines still doesn't have build caching https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/content/idea/365... F.S. I work for Codefresh a CI/CD solution

They just added it in preview within the last couple weeks.

Re: GitHub Actions now supports CI/CD, free for public repositories

#144

Post by 0xffff2 »

rehemiau wrote: post #87

It always supported CI/CD, they just changed their marketing strategy from "No it's not just CI/CD" to "Yes we have CI/CD now"

What have they “always” supported exactly? I’ve used GitHub for a long time, but I use it entirely as a git server and sometimes an issue tracker. That said, I’m pretty sure they didn’t support anything that even remotely resembles CI/CD back when I started using it.

Re: GitHub Actions now supports CI/CD, free for public repositories

#145

Post by wolco »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #127
manigandham wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A monopoly is not inherently bad. They often benefit users with increased efficiency and productivity. They're only bad when progress stagnates and/or prices rise. In this case, Github is actively competing and adding features that helps all of their users. If that means that some other companies lose market share then it's just a sign that the value proposition has changed. I see no problem with this, it's how the m…

> A monopoly is not inherently bad. They often benefit users with increased efficiency and productivity. They're only bad when progress stagnates and/or prices rise. My argument is every single monopoly eventually becomes 'bad' and makes progress stagnate and prices rise . Just look at Google and Amazon. Up until I'd say late-ish 00s, nearly everyone loved Google and Amazon. I remember when Google search, GMail, Maps…

Now that you mention it maps hasn't really improved since streetview. Search is worse. Gmail hasn't really changed much. I guess after it's launched new features are too difficult to add for google.

Re: GitHub Actions now supports CI/CD, free for public repositories

#146

Post by [deleted] »

colemorrison wrote: post #86

This "sounds" interesting, and I'd absolutely love to manage ci/cd in github. Can anyone point me to some clear docs or articles on its usage? The blog post and developer guide on actions reads like some hybrid of a marketing page and a plain index of terms. Most of the examples on workflows/actions documentation and the like are in HCL which is being deprecated.

[deleted]

Re: GitHub Actions now supports CI/CD, free for public repositories

#147

Post by vitomd »

People will think twice when investing the time & money in develop an app for the github marketplace as if it succeed, Github could just built the app inside their system. They bought PullPanda which was good for his creator because I think it was less expensive that build that themselves.

Re: GitHub Actions now supports CI/CD, free for public repositories

#148

Post by nullspace »

structural wrote: post #141
clinta wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an operations guy, but I think I have a different perspective. The developers I work with don't have to think about CI/CD, but the configuration still lives in the repo, I'm just a contributer to that repo like they are. Having CI configuration separate from the code sounds like a nightmare when a code change requires CI configurations to be updated. A new version of code requires a new dependency for instance, t…

Having CI configuration inside the codebase also sounds like a nightmare when changes to the CI or deployment environment require configuration changes or when multiple CI/deployment environments exist. For example as a use case: Software has dozens of tagged releases; organization moves from deploying on AWS to deploying in a Kubernetes cluster (requiring at least one change to the deployment configuration). Now, to…

> organization moves from deploying on AWS to deploying in a Kubernetes cluster

I had (and still have) high hopes for circleci's orbs to help with this use case. Unfortunately, orbs are private - which makes it a no-go for us.

But, in my dream world, we have bits of the deployed configuration that can be imported from else where - and this is built right into the CI system.

In practice, for my org, the code and configuration for the CI comes from both the "infra" repo as well as the "application" repo. The configuration itself is stored in the app repo, but then there's a call `python deploy_to_kubernetes.py `. The `deploy_to_xxx.py` script would be in the "infra" repo.

It also depends on your workflow - do you change the common deploy infrastructure more often, or do you change the application specific deploy infra more often.

Yeah, writing code to deploy code is sometimes fun, but sometimes nasty.

Re: GitHub Actions now supports CI/CD, free for public repositories

#149

Post by dragonwriter »

vitomd wrote: post #147

People will think twice when investing the time & money in develop an app for the github marketplace as if it succeed, Github could just built the app inside their system. They bought PullPanda which was good for his creator because I think it was less expensive that build that themselves.

> People will think twice when investing the time & money in develop an app for the github marketplace as if it succeed, Github could just built the app inside their system.

That's always a concern with platforms with attached marketplaces (heck, it's even potentially an issue with building apps for OS’s, even if they don't have an attached marketplace—ask Netscape.)

Re: GitHub Actions now supports CI/CD, free for public repositories

#150

Post by wolco »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #137
clarkmoody wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monopolies are subject to the laws of economics. GitHub has gained near-monopoly status because it has provided a superior user experience at a great price. If either of those value propositions start to crumble, git remote add ... Exploitative monopolies almost always have help from the state: The Patent Office, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Reserve, FDA, etc either grant monopoly or cartel privilege to th…

Basically everyone I talk to despises Facebook, which gets pretty much no help from the state, but they still use it because there are no real alternatives. My argument is that technological platforms are pretty special when it comes to monopoly power because their lock in/switching costs are so high that they can last long after they've stagnated in terms of innovation. And they just buy up all their competition.

There are tons of alternatives just none that your friends are on.

Surprised no one has taken facebook's launch strategy. Only allow it in one school. Then only ivy league colleges. Then all colleges. Then everyone. Also allow you to import in your email contacts on signup.

That strategy created press / word of mouth and kept it youthful until they were ready for the big launch.

Post reply on HN