It does not seem unreasonable that if the locally-run actions are using some GitHub resources (for logging, maintenance,etc) then there's a cost to that.
What a reasonable charge is, is open to discussion.
GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions
11–20 of 133 posts
Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions
#12Unrelated to Actions. Jared Palmer, the author of this Tweet, has done well for himself. I remember him as the author of Turborepo which Vercel gobbled up a few years ago.
Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions
#13> Although we gave away 11.5 billion build minutes (~$184 million) to support OSS last year Interesting, I was trying to estimate how much they spent on free actions per year. I thought it would be around $100m. This is the first actual number I've seen. I expect the $184 million figure is the sale price rather than the actual cost to GitHub, and given that competitors offer the same service for 3-10x less it's proba…
I wonder how much of that $80 million is garbage code like safe_sleep.sh
Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions
#14[deleted]
Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions
#15Oh good I have a little bit more time to migrate away.
Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions
#16Hm, still too late, and still leaving.
Maybe I don't understand something, but self-hosted GitHub Actions cost more resources than GitHub Actions hosted with them?
There might be some creative uses of GitHub Actions, it seemed that getting users into the platform was valuable.
Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions
#17It does not seem unreasonable that if the locally-run actions are using some GitHub resources (for logging, maintenance,etc) then there's a cost to that. What a reasonable charge is, is open to discussion.
It sure as hell isn't a per-minute cost
Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions
#18It does not seem unreasonable that if the locally-run actions are using some GitHub resources (for logging, maintenance,etc) then there's a cost to that. What a reasonable charge is, is open to discussion.
It sure as hell isn't a per-minute cost
per-minute is really just a way to express the cost in a human friendly name. Doing per-hour, per-second, per-day could all result in the same total value just at a different number. If anything per-minute is better than per-hour as you won't be charge for minutes you don't use.
Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sure as hell isn't a per-minute cost
per-minute is really just a way to express the cost in a human friendly name. Doing per-hour, per-second, per-day could all result in the same total value just at a different number. If anything per-minute is better than per-hour as you won't be charge for minutes you don't use.
the issue is it's per-$DURATION
it could be per-workflow, regardless of duration
Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions
#20Related:
initial development and reactions:
Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions