Live data from Hacker News

GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

twitter.com

51–60 of 133 posts

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#51
post #43

There's one thing I don't understand. Isn't GitHub action just "take a repo, do something with it, save something somewhere". So how is it different than writing a bash script that "clones the repo, do something with it, pushes the changes back"? If actions became paid feature, wouldn't that just generated myriads of show hn posts like "I recreated GitHub actions in xyz"?

Yes, in theory any CI/CD (whether Github, Gitlab, Jenkins etc,) is just a shell script with some warpping. But this wrapping matters because it's convenience: how you integrate with the repo, how you deal with variables, secrets, caching, deployment security and so on. Some people roughly figured this out and proposed some ways which other people learned, so switching is always a bit of a pain in various ways. But it is definitely possible - I did quite a lot of pipeline migration in my life and this is definitely not a blocker for a project of small to medium to biggish-size.

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most obvious "all-in-one" package is GitLab, if you have the hardware for it and don't mind bit of bloat but all the needed features in one package. Personally, for smaller scale projects that still require collaboration over the web, Gitea/Forgejo + Woodpecker CI has been a really simple, lightweight and easy to maintain solution.

I am self host8ng forgejo. What can other CIs do that I could potentially need that is absent?

If you're using the built-in Actions/CI/whatever it's called, and it works for you, then that's great, don't try to change :)

I guess I'm mostly still with Woodpecker because of having used it for years already, don't think there is anything major missing with either approaches, but was a while ago I looked deeper into it, maybe someone else here knows more (recent) details.

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#53
post #39

1. Announce price increase generating bad publicity. 2. Kill bad publicity with blog pretending to be understanding and taking on feedback while "pausing" the increase. 3. Implement price increase a few months later when the bad publicity wave is over, and its old news so wont generate new headlines.

No. There is real serious money involved here. Usually, the people who self-host are maxing their runners (otherwise it makes more sense to use minute billing). So this will affect them by roughly doubling their servers cost. Think if some company had a $15K/month bill in self-runners, they'll now also get a $15k/month additional bill from GitHub. Many people will switch for that kind of money.

We use dedicated machines for our runners. Each machine has like 16+ cpus, 64gb+ of ram. Costs are <2k per month. This pricing change would have cost more than the servers we're running on.

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#54
post #25

> GitHub stated that it has canceled the price increase after reviewing developer feedback. It added that it will take time to listen to customers and partners. I get the feeling they got the feedback that their runners are not as indispensable to developers as they thought and realized they would lose a significant amount of users. Now if only they would listen to the feedback about windows 11 and their forced copil…

I wonder if Microsoft will ever get that asking users before making changes can help them avoid looking bad in public. Maybe half of all clients I work with use GitHub Actions for CI (the rest basically all use Jenkins), most of those using Actions use self-hosted runners for performance and security reasons, almost all of them reached out to me asking how difficult it would be to move away from GitHub Actions yet co…

Fun thing is that almost every other CI as a service provider charges you in some shape or form for self hosted runners. CircleCI limits the number of self-hosted Job Running in parallel based on your plan and charges a fixed base fee per seat.

So moving away from GHA will not make self-hosted runners free, they’ll move into a different pricing structure that may or may not be beneficial.

And I think charging for self-hosted runners is actually fine. They’re not free for the provider either - log aggregation, caching of artifacts, runner scheduling, implementing the runner software etc are non-trivial problems for any larger CI system.

So I’m actually fine with the proposed change since it also gives me the power as a customer to say “hey, I’m paying for this, fix it.”

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#55
post #33

1. Announce price increase generating bad publicity. 2. Kill bad publicity with blog pretending to be understanding and taking on feedback while "pausing" the increase. 3. Implement price increase a few months later when the bad publicity wave is over, and its old news so wont generate new headlines.

Nah, that doesn’t work when the substance of the change is this intense and has an actual effect on peoples’ bottom lines. If they wait a few months and try again, people will see their bills go up immediately and they’ll all get mad again. I don’t know what GH will do next, but if they try to do that, it will definitely backfire.

You might be surprised at how much you’re willing to surrender if someone gave you some time to come to terms with it.

It’s just a question of giving you enough time to move on from anger/shock/fear to toward acceptance. It’s like magic and is used all the time.

> Nah, that doesn’t work when…

Sounds like it could be another well known stage of the process called denial. Denial is when you tell yourself that something isn’t possible which makes you feel safer, when in fact you’re already moving toward acceptance - acceptance that you’re going to leave, or pay the price.

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#56
post #35

Outside of work, I'm a very sporadic coder. On some side-projects where I'm using Actions, I'll have an inspired few days of progress followed by completely idle weeks/months/quarters. Losing free Actions doesn't particularly bother me, and I have no issue with paying what is most likely a negligible amount, but I don't really want to have a credit card on file which could be charged some unbounded amount if somebody…

There are several “virtual credit card” providers that allow you to generate additional cards, set limit on them like amounts and who can charge the CC. The availability varies per geography.

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#57
post #32
post #28

Oh good, I can postpone my migration for personal projects.

Or, rather, you have more time to execute it. They _will_ rug pull again, this is Microsoft ffs.

It's the classic strategy of floating an extreme change, "listening to feedback", and then coming back later with the price they intended to charge all along.

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#58
post #35

Outside of work, I'm a very sporadic coder. On some side-projects where I'm using Actions, I'll have an inspired few days of progress followed by completely idle weeks/months/quarters. Losing free Actions doesn't particularly bother me, and I have no issue with paying what is most likely a negligible amount, but I don't really want to have a credit card on file which could be charged some unbounded amount if somebody…

Put a spend limit in GitHub and issue a chargeback if they ever bill you more.

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#59
post #25

> GitHub stated that it has canceled the price increase after reviewing developer feedback. It added that it will take time to listen to customers and partners. I get the feeling they got the feedback that their runners are not as indispensable to developers as they thought and realized they would lose a significant amount of users. Now if only they would listen to the feedback about windows 11 and their forced copil…

> Now if only they would listen to the feedback about windows 11 and their forced copilot we might be onto something.

You can just uninstall Copilot? It’s nowhere on my Surface Laptop 7 with W11.

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#60
post #25

> GitHub stated that it has canceled the price increase after reviewing developer feedback. It added that it will take time to listen to customers and partners. I get the feeling they got the feedback that their runners are not as indispensable to developers as they thought and realized they would lose a significant amount of users. Now if only they would listen to the feedback about windows 11 and their forced copil…

> Now if only they would listen to the feedback about windows 11 and their forced copilot we might be onto something. You can just uninstall Copilot? It’s nowhere on my Surface Laptop 7 with W11.

For now
Post reply on HN