201–210 of 853 posts
What I'd really like to see is some new CI/CD systems though. Actions is garbage in multiple dimensions. Can't somebody do something clever and save us from this flaky insecure YAML hell?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Monorepo, though Gitlab, self-hosted runner, 41 hours in the last week.
Tell me that $20/month is a notable amount of expense for your business spending 41 hours per week on workflows. Go on.
Back to Buildkite I go.
Isn't it like way more expensive and restricted? They were very competitive in the early days, but currently they are more capped than anything else it seems. Especially for self hosting.. > Hosted Agents > > 2,000 minutes/month :-o
At $0.002 per minute there are at most 90 dollars in a month. Maybe even after an year of cumulative costs it's less then the cost of switching to something else. Maybe even after many and many years of cumulative costs: the larger the company the more expensive corporate inertia gets.
For example, in our pipeline we have 5 different linter tasks (for different subprojects), running each only a few seconds. Nonetheless, we’ll get billed for 5 minutes on every commit.
> We are introducing a $0.002 per-minute Actions cloud platform charge for all Actions workflows across GitHub-hosted and self-hosted runners. Charging for self-hosted runners is an interesting choice. That's the same cost as their smallest hosted runners [1] [1] - https://docs.github.com/en/billing/reference/actions-runner-...
Yep - Bitbucket made a similar move recently and I guess they are just following along. I'd love to get the justification of that fee tho… Edit: Confused GitLab and Bitbucket
I thought that "Bitbucket" was in your original post and you added only your edit message to say that it was, in fact, Gitlab and not Bitbucket that added cost for self-hosted runners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They still host all artefacts and logs for these self-hosted runs. Probably costs them a fair bit
They already charge for this separately (at least storage). Some compute cost may be justified but you'd wish that this change would come with some commitment of fixing bugs (many open for years) in their CI platform -- as opposed to investing all their resources in a (mostly inferior) LLM agent (copilot).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've self-hosted github actions in the past, and self-hosting it doesn't help all that much with the fragile part. For github it is just as much triggering the actions as it is running them. ;) I hope the product gets some investment, because it has been unstable for such a long time, that on the inside it must be just the usual right now. GitHub has by far the worst uptime of any SaaS tools we use at the moment, an…
We self host the runners in our infrastructure and the builds are over 10x faster than relying on their cloud runners. It's crazy the performance you get from running runners on your own hardware instead of their shared CPU. Literally from ~8m build time on Gradle + Docker down to mere 15s of Gradle + Docker on self hosted CPUs.
Tangled has a nix based workflow engine that looks very similar, if you are into nix and self-hosting runners https://tangled.org/tangled.org/core/blob/master/docs/spindl... (no affiliation) --- Blog post about Tangled's CI: https://blog.tangled.org/ci
Useless for Mac or Windows presumably.
I'm in the era of writing my own tools, not to share just for me or whatever group I'm working in. If you're going to charge me for something rife with annoying struggles, I might as well be annoyed by a tool I control.