21–30 of 88 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see a lot of mentions of "travis-ci.com" in this post, are the OSS changes meant to impact travis-ci.org as well, or just OSS projects that are using travis-ci.com for some reason?
All OSS projects are supposed to move to the .com domain by the end of the year. They plan to shutdown the .org domain on December 31st. Source: https://mailchi.mp/3d439eeb1098/travis-ciorg-is-moving-to-tr...
It seems GitLab CI/CD is beating Travis CI on pretty much every metric now, except the weirdness of only using GitLab for CI/CD and not code hosting, if you prefer to use GitHub for that. Am I missing something? (GitLab supports using its CI/CD on a non-GitLab repo just fine, but it can cause some initial confusion.)
After travis-ci got bought and layed off a lot of key staff I did think the day would come where they will no longer will be the defacto choice for open source and I think this news confirms that day being today :-)
It seems GitLab CI/CD is beating Travis CI on pretty much every metric now, except the weirdness of only using GitLab for CI/CD and not code hosting, if you prefer to use GitHub for that. Am I missing something? (GitLab supports using its CI/CD on a non-GitLab repo just fine, but it can cause some initial confusion.)
Interesting. I didn't realize you can use GitLab CI/CD on non-GitLab repo. Do you happen to have a documentation on this (my searches came up empty)?
I'm wondering if there's still a solid reason to use Travis for new projects. I can't be bothered to move my current builds from there to GitHub Actions, but for future projects GitHub Actions seems way more lucrative to use. I think both pale out in comparison to GitLab CI however, it's a pity GitLab is less popular.
The interesting part is the FOSS changes Basically they significantly cut the FOSS usage by instead offering free credit and then reviewing the projects on case-by-case basis if you run out of it. It's a big change, but honestly, I don't know how they could they provide free computation for any public repo no questions asked as they have been up until now.
It seems GitLab CI/CD is beating Travis CI on pretty much every metric now, except the weirdness of only using GitLab for CI/CD and not code hosting, if you prefer to use GitHub for that. Am I missing something? (GitLab supports using its CI/CD on a non-GitLab repo just fine, but it can cause some initial confusion.)
Then they moved the repository replication to the paid plan (20$/month/user).
For a simple 10 person team, that's 200$ a month. Exclusively to get access to repository replication !!
I have my own runners, so there's no reason to pay for the paid plan. I just end up hacking around some replication script.
See https://medium.com/@PedroGomes/mirror-repository-to-gitlab-f...
It seems GitLab CI/CD is beating Travis CI on pretty much every metric now, except the weirdness of only using GitLab for CI/CD and not code hosting, if you prefer to use GitHub for that. Am I missing something? (GitLab supports using its CI/CD on a non-GitLab repo just fine, but it can cause some initial confusion.)
Personally, I really like that Travis offers a variety of architectures; I’m currently running binutils on it: https://travis-ci.com/github/saagarjha/binutils-gdb. I suspect this might be a substantial portion of the CI it sees, and it’s been great that it’s been free so far. I am unsure if it will still stay up with these changes. But, I’m sure running these kinds of builds can’t be cheap at all.
It seems GitLab CI/CD is beating Travis CI on pretty much every metric now, except the weirdness of only using GitLab for CI/CD and not code hosting, if you prefer to use GitHub for that. Am I missing something? (GitLab supports using its CI/CD on a non-GitLab repo just fine, but it can cause some initial confusion.)