Live data from Hacker News

GitHub Actions has a package manager, and it might be the worst

nesbitt.io

261–267 of 267 posts

Re: GitHub Actions has a package manager, and it might be the worst

#261
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When’s the last time you looked at or used Bitbucket?

Like a week ago? We’re currently migrating away from it as everyone hated it.

Do we work in the same company? That said, I really don't understand why everyone hates on Bitbucket. I really thought it was _fine_ from a user perspective. Now we're on GHE and I find it a sidegrade at best.

Now for the people who were operating Bitbucket, I'm sure it's a relief.

Re: GitHub Actions has a package manager, and it might be the worst

#262
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some plan to make all of GitHub's backend "legacy" and switch everyone to the dumpster fire that is Azure DevOps and if you thought GitHub Actions was bad...

When Microsoft bought GitHub they cancelled GitHubs own early CI effort and rebranded the existing Azure DevOps as GitHub Actions. The GitHub Actions runner source code is all dotnet. GitHub was a Ruby shop.

I believe the original GitHub Actions was in Go - it used HCL which was at that point only really implemented in Go. Quite the move backwards to switch to YAML.

Re: GitHub Actions has a package manager, and it might be the worst

#263
post #261
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like a week ago? We’re currently migrating away from it as everyone hated it.

Do we work in the same company? That said, I really don't understand why everyone hates on Bitbucket. I really thought it was _fine_ from a user perspective. Now we're on GHE and I find it a sidegrade at best. Now for the people who were operating Bitbucket, I'm sure it's a relief.

As a user, I found Bitbucket to be a lot harder when it comes to searching and browsing code. The Markdown formatting is also more limited for documentation and the lack of Mermaid support in Markdown documents was shocking to see considering how both of the primary competitors (GitHub and GitLab) have implemented it.

Re: GitHub Actions has a package manager, and it might be the worst

#264
post #36

This is making me feel quietly vindicated in pushing back on migrating our Jenkins/Ansible setup to GHA simply because corporate wanted the new shiny thing. Fortunately the "this will be a lot of work, i.e. cost" argument won. Mind you, CI does always involve a surprising amount of maintenance. Update churn is real. And Macs still are very much more fiddly to treat as "cattle" machines.

CI is interesting because what really happens is you run a script on someone elses computer but with fairly weird constraints.

I get it's use, especially in large companies and I also get the culture leading up to it being widely used but I can't help but chuckle a bit about the problems we cause for ourselves in this industry.

Re: GitHub Actions has a package manager, and it might be the worst

#265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jenkins! For the love of god don’t listen to this.

Always open to learning, what's wrong with Jenkins? It's a bit bloated, but it's free and works.

Fragile against upgrades, tons of unmaintained plugins, admin panel UX is a mess where you struggle to find the stuff your are looking for, half backed transition to nicer UI (Blue Ocean) that has been ongoing for years, too many ways to setup jobs and integrates with repos, poor resource management (disk space, CPU, RAM), sketchy security patterns inadvertently encouraged.

This stuff is a nightmare to manage, and with large code bases/products, you need a dedicated "devops" just to babysit the thing and avoid it becoming a liability for your devs.

I'm actually looking forward our migration to GHEC from on-prem just because Github Actions, as shitty as they are, are far less of an headache than Jenkins.

Re: GitHub Actions has a package manager, and it might be the worst

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their entire ecosystem is basically held up with duct tape and gets very little investment. That isn't gonna get better anytime soon. "GitHub Will Prioritize Migrating to Azure Over Feature Development" [1] [1] https://thenewstack.io/github-will-prioritize-migrating-to-a...

They barely maintain Azure pipeline tasks / actions as well. We had a critical outage because they deprecated Windows 2019 agents a month earlier than scheduled. MS support had the gall to both blame us for not migrating sooner, and refuse to escalate for 36 hours!

What? No they didn't. They extended the deprecation timeline for Windows 2019 agents from the original EOL date of 30 June 2025 to 31 December 2025; with a well-published brownout period from 2 December to 9 December in addition to the original brownout period from 3 June to 24 June.

The initial banners and warning emails about it went out well ahead of the original EOL timeline; and again as the extended EOL drew close.

If you were caught off guard by the brownout period, it's your devops team that's to blame, not Microsoft; and Microsoft was absolutely right to blame you for not migrating sooner. They gave you an extra 6 months to do it because you should have had all this done back in the first half of the year.

(If you want to blame Microsoft for anything here, blame them for not having a comprehensive tool to identify all your windows-2019 pipelines and instead just relying on "just go look at the latest pipeline runs page and hope everything's run recently enough to be on that".)

Re: GitHub Actions has a package manager, and it might be the worst

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CircleCI made great steps the last few years, f.e. to better support proper DRY working, supporting OPA policies-as-code, VSCode extensions with "dry-run" options. For some examples of more advanced usecases take a look: https://circleci.com/blog/platform-toolkit/ Disclaimer: i work for CircleCI.

To be clear, I do think CircleCI is a better product than GHA. I just think there's a lot of air sucked out of the room by GHA being available 'for free' and out of the box. Also, honestly, I don't care about any of those features. The main thing I want is a CI system that is fast and customisable and that I don't have to spend a lot of time debugging. I think CircleCI is pretty decent in that regard (the "rerun with…

Agreed that caching needs (and can be, and will be) improved.
Post reply on HN