Considering CircleCI has many more years in operation, are there features and use cases it supports that GitHub Actions doesn't? Are there ones that GitHub Actions already supports that CircleCI doesn't?
GitHub Actions now supports CI/CD, free for public repositories
211–220 of 239 posts
Re: GitHub Actions now supports CI/CD, free for public repositories
#212Earlier 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. 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.
The Apple Maps 'street view' equivalent (coming in iOS 13) has a transition animation (for moving down the street) that absolutely knocks the socks off Google's. It was surprising to see just how strikingly better it is. I don't think Google changed it in that time.
Re: GitHub Actions now supports CI/CD, free for public repositories
#213Earlier 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…
The point I think is that as GitHub adds more and more integrations (git + issues + fork graph + CI/CI + ...) then it's not so simple to move to another service. The vertical is more convenient until you realize you're an Oracle customer all over again.
With CI, I wonder if someone could build a tool which had some sort of DSL to define your CI pipeline, and then translated that to configuration files for multiple CI providers (Travis CI, CircleCI, GitHub Actions, Jenkins, etc.) If you write all your CI pipelines in that DSL, then moving to another provider would be just telling the tool to generate output for another backend.
(One issue is that such a DSL could only provide lowest common denominator functionality... or else, suppose CI providers 1 and 2 offer feature X but 3 and 4 don't, then if you use feature X, you can switch between 1 and 2, but the tool would give an "unsupported feature" error if you tried to generate output for 3 or 4.)
Re: GitHub Actions now supports CI/CD, free for public repositories
#214As a Gitlab user that's not strongly committed to the platform, this looks like a pretty interesting option. Anyone have thoughts on how this compares to e.g. Google Cloud Builder in terms of functionality? Being integrated into the GH backend seems like a big perk, rather than having to use webhooks for everything. Seems like you can do things like build your Docker containers ( https://developer.github.com/actions/…
GH Actions offers self-hosted agents too, that can be deployed in the VPC
I can't seem to find that in the docs, do you have a link to hand? Thanks!
Re: GitHub Actions now supports CI/CD, free for public repositories
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is where the Valve vs Epic argument gets interesting as Valve has consistently been pro-consumer, so i have no problem with them being a monopoly. Epic appears to be firmly pro-developer, which no matter what Tim Sweeney says isn't currently translating into an improved consumer experience.
Valve are not a monopoly. Steam's competition is not Epic, it is piracy.
Also Origin
Re: GitHub Actions now supports CI/CD, free for public repositories
#216This is great news for developers. The trend has been to combine version control and CI for years now. For a timeline see https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-c... This is bad news for the CI providers that depend on GitHub, in particular CircleCI. Luckily for them (or maybe they saw this coming) they recently raised a series D https://circleci.com/blog/we-raised-a-56m-series-d-what-s-ne... and…
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…
Having all the tooling being integrated makes it a lot easier to offer good feature interaction. Right now the atomisation of "software project management features" means that your project is run over 10 servers all held together by flaky webhooks, and requests that should be instant instead take 30 seconds because everything has to be remotely queried.
Though really the thing that should happen in this case is that we should be seeing more tooling that can be run on a local machine that has a deeper understanding of what a "project" is. Git is great for version control. But stuff like issue tracking and CI also exist. So if there was some meta-tool that could tie all that together.
A bonus: if you make some simple-ish CLI tool that ties all this together, the "Github as the controller of everything" risk goes down because it would become easier for other people to spin up all-encompasing services.
A tool like this would do to project hosting what Microsoft's language server tooling has done to building IDEs. A mostly unified meta-model would mean that we wouldn't spend our times rewriting things to store issue lists.
Re: GitHub Actions now supports CI/CD, free for public repositories
#217This is very interesting to me. It also makes me think about the natural rise of monopolies and monoculture in tech. GitHub has really been extending to "eating the world" as of late. Recently in terms of their package registry that must have folks like Artifactory and Nexus a bit shaken, and now this, which is bad news for folks like CircleCI (and I say this as a CircleCI user). As a developer, in the short term I l…
I think its seriously such a hard problem to solve in tech. Its so easy and beneficial even for customers if one company does everything. Github can (and does!) offer the most open, accessible, and integrated APIs possible for CI/CD to plug into. But, when Github builds it, its just another tab in your PR, which is much more convenient.
We use Jira for ticketing and Github for code storage, like many companies. We've had SOC2 auditors tell us that they'd prefer to see us on Bitbucket just because the integration with Jira is more seamless; it guarantees a much deeper audit trail to go from RFC in Confluence -> Ticket in Jira -> Code in Bitbucket -> Deploy in whateverthefuck atlassian does for CI/CD. They didn't dock us, certainly.
But they're not wrong! I agree with them entirely! There's a part of me that hates that monopolization of our stack into one company, but there's another part of me that's like "that auditability and integration is so nice, and we literally will never see it if we're using ten different SaaS providers for each thing". How do you rectify those competing viewpoints? I don't know if you can.
Re: GitHub Actions now supports CI/CD, free for public repositories
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? All of these products probably have a miles long changelog. I mean, I can assume you don't care for the change, but it's there. Streetview was launched in 2007.
Did they not see Google Maps change to a globe late last year? Revolutionary! Take that Flat Earthers!
It’s still Mercator on mobile (iOS at least). How hard is it to push this change?
Re: GitHub Actions now supports CI/CD, free for public repositories
#219This is great news for developers. The trend has been to combine version control and CI for years now. For a timeline see https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-c... This is bad news for the CI providers that depend on GitHub, in particular CircleCI. Luckily for them (or maybe they saw this coming) they recently raised a series D https://circleci.com/blog/we-raised-a-56m-series-d-what-s-ne... and…
Any reason CI providers couldn't start adding repo hosting?
Sure! This is how Heroku works. Although, if you also mean change management (issues, code review, browsing, etc), that's a much bigger lift, especially if your intention is to outdo GitHub.
Re: GitHub Actions now supports CI/CD, free for public repositories
#220I do not understand why Microsoft finances this. I understand the hosting as a specialized social platform, but GitHub Actions vs. Azure DevOps Pipelines are a duplicated effort. Better integration for GitHub for the Azure DevOps suite would solve that in a similar way without duplication of capabilities.
All roads lead to Azure. Github's user base is far bigger than Azure's user base, and Microsoft wants to eventually get as many people as possible buying IaaS (or equivalents). The next logical step after Github Actions for CI/CD is to offer Github as a place to run the production code too. You would be buying Azure with fewer steps. It's pretty arbitrary that we develop code in one place while then going off and usi…
It's very interesting and Microsoft is THE BEST at creating those ecosystems.
I'm sure there are warts but the current develop, deploy, debug(in prod!) workflow with Azure and VSCode is supposed to be pretty awesome.