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

CircleCI Announces Support for Gitlab

circleci.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 124 posts

Re: CircleCI Announces Support for Gitlab

#31

Post by mdaniel »

bdcravens wrote: post #3

Isn't one of the main selling points of Gitlab their built-in CI? Anyone using Gitlab use an external CI?

As a long-time GitLab CI user, I do miss how the local circleci runner binary just worked. I am aware of gitlab-runner but it is a sick joke designed to mislead folks who just skim the docs into believing that they have a local execution story

Or, I guess a more conciliatory stance is: wow, folks must be using some pretty hello-world pipelines if `gitlab-runner exec` works for you

Re: CircleCI Announces Support for Gitlab

#32

Post by mdaniel »

AtNightWeCode wrote: post #23

How can a CI-service not support ANY GIT source? All this garbage surrounding GIT is just baffling.

I would guess it falls into the "what assumptions does the runner make?" followed closely by "there is no standard for what env-var contains: the current branch, the commit sha, the commit message, the current pipeline identifier, ..." and a bazillion other bits of contextual information

Made worse by: ok, fine, you magically have `eval $(git set-env-from-commit HEAD)`, now how do you report those run results back to the upstream UI, since there is for sure no standard for that

Re: CircleCI Announces Support for Gitlab

#33

Post by gtk40 »

pid_0 wrote: post #10

Who even uses external CIs anymore? GitHub and gitlab ones are great otherwise you have plenty you can deploy yourself.

We were evaluating CircleCI at work (wanting to move on from Jenkins) and ended up going with GitHub Actions near launch as it was a similar enough project but without needing another vendor involved. We have had some kinks but GHA works well for us now with a substantial spend.

Re: CircleCI Announces Support for Gitlab

#36

Post by sureglymop »

pid_0 wrote: post #10

Who even uses external CIs anymore? GitHub and gitlab ones are great otherwise you have plenty you can deploy yourself.

They're "great"? Really? Imo the only sane thing is to write CI/CD pipelines in a scripting language like sh. That way it is portable and doesn't depend on one platform. Gitlab CI supports "include" but not for scripts, just for templates. It's hard to have a centralised repository of scripts and include ones to use in a pipeline. I just don't understand why CI/CD couldn't just be in sh...

Re: CircleCI Announces Support for Gitlab

#37

Post by goodoldneon »

mdaniel wrote: post #31
bdcravens wrote: post #3

Isn't one of the main selling points of Gitlab their built-in CI? Anyone using Gitlab use an external CI?

As a long-time GitLab CI user, I do miss how the local circleci runner binary just worked . I am aware of gitlab-runner but it is a sick joke designed to mislead folks who just skim the docs into believing that they have a local execution story Or, I guess a more conciliatory stance is: wow, folks must be using some pretty hello-world pipelines if `gitlab-runner exec` works for you

We provision our self-hosted runners via Terraform and GitLab's Helm chart. It's a relatively painless setup, but obviously not a few button clicks and commands

Re: CircleCI Announces Support for Gitlab

#38

Post by mtlynch »

lflux wrote: post #35

Still no support for arm64 docker executors after years of asking for it.

Can't you run Docker on an arm64 machine executor?

https://circleci.com/docs/using-arm

I know it's not as convenient as being able to use a docker executor directly, but it seems straightforward to work around.

Re: CircleCI Announces Support for Gitlab

#39

Post by robertlagrant »

djbusby wrote: post #17
candiddevmike wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it mean to be more philosophically aligned with one corporation vs another?

That the buyer believes in the same thing the company "believes" in. Eg: GitLab has an open-core product and GitHub is owned by (evil?) Microsoft.

Also the company is incredibly open, with lots of its documentation and meetings done in public and available on YouTube. Pretty interesting.

Re: CircleCI Announces Support for Gitlab

#40

Post by robertlagrant »

judge2020 wrote: post #22
mtlynch wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It appeals to me as someone who likes Circle's CI offering but wants to move away from Github. I tried using Gitlab's CI and was surprised at how limited it was. The Gitlab CI syntax was harder to follow, and my integration tests took 17m to run when they ran in almost 1/3 the time on Circle. A big part of the problem was that CircleCI lets me use an instance with 8 CPUs / 16 GB RAM with just a config file change[0],…

Related, GitHub has had 'use more powerful hosted runners' in the pipeline for over 2 years[0]. This issue replaced another now-deleted issue[1] from July 2020. Really disappointing, as I've had to resort to using `az vm start` -> run -> `az vm deallocate` to use an on-demand powerful runner. 0: https://github.com/github/roadmap/issues/161 1: https://github.com/github/roadmap/issues/95 (note: added `ga` `ae` and remo…

As a former CircleCI customer (my new employer uses Gitlab) I can highly recommend them. They make that issue so easy. You can even request GPU machines and it all works really well.
Post reply on HN