Live data from Hacker News

Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

resources.github.com

321–330 of 853 posts

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#321

Personally, I quite liked GitLab CI when I used it circa 2021-23. Just now I did a quick search and found this article^1 suggesting (even before this GH pricing change) Gitlab CI may be a better choice than Github Actions. 1. https://medium.com/@the_atomic_architect/github-vs-gitlab-20...

GitLab CI is quite good. Have been using it for several years.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#322

I'm happy to see they're investing in Actions — charging for it should help make sure it continues to work. It's a huge reason Github is so valuable: having the status checks run on every PR, automatically, is great. Even though I'm more of a fan of Buildkite when it comes to configuring the workflows, I still need something to kick them off when PRs change, etc. Charging a per-workflow-minute platform fee makes a lo…

I don't think it makes sense to charge per minute just for logs. If they want to charge for log retention, sure, go ahead. But that is pennies, let's be real.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#323
post #274

The reason this makes sense, at least for Github, is because the only valid reason to run your own action runners is compliance. And if you are doing it for compliance, price doesn't really matter. You don't really have a choice. If you've been running your runners on your own infra for cost reasons, you're not really that interesting to the Github business.

I needed arm64 workers, because x86 would take ~25 minutes to do a build.

if it's useful, they do actually have arm workers now for linux and mac: https://github.com/actions/runner-images/tree/main?tab=readm...

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#324
post #274

The reason this makes sense, at least for Github, is because the only valid reason to run your own action runners is compliance. And if you are doing it for compliance, price doesn't really matter. You don't really have a choice. If you've been running your runners on your own infra for cost reasons, you're not really that interesting to the Github business.

Performance and data locality.

You can throw tons of cores and ram locally at problems without any licensing costs.

Your data may be local, makes sense to work with it locally.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#325

This is my first comment on HN despite being a user for over a decade -- this is one of the most outrageous pricing changes I've encountered - I couldn't believe it when I read the email earlier (I run self-hosted runners). Anyone using GitLab or any other VCM that you'd recommend? I'm absolutely done with Github. Or is everything else just as bad?

I'm pretty happy with codeberg.org as a free host.

Alternatively, Forgejo, Gitea, or (based on praise I've seen from other people) maybe sourcehut.org.

I find GitLab's interface intolerable. Heavy reliance on javascript even for read-only access, nonintuitive organization, common operations hidden behind menus, mystifying icons... Every time I seek out a project's home and discover a GitLab instance, I find myself pausing to reconsider whether contributing to the project will really be rewarding enough to outweigh the unpleasant experience I'm about to have.

What does VCM stand for?

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they know Forgejo is starting to get attention from major players and thus becoming competitive, and hosting your own CI infrastructure will make completely moving away from GitHub all that easier - If you don't really care about the metadata all it pretty much takes is moving git repositories with their history. Or shortly summarized: lock in through pricing. Pretty sure this will explode straight in their f…

[flagged]

Inclusive is strike 1?

What color are you?

I'm sure I can find a company that supports ethnostates if you need that for your next project.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I needed arm64 workers, because x86 would take ~25 minutes to do a build.

They have these now.

Only for public repos though - if you're in an org with private repositories you don't get access to them (yet).

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually $90/month, that's kind of crazy. I realise 100% utilisation isn't realistic, but that still sounds very expensive when you're already BYOB.

> I realise 100% utilisation isn't realistic It's worse than unrealistic. It's ludicrous. Any company running more than an hour of actions workflows per week on GitHub can afford a few dollars a month for infrastructure. The per-minute charge is less than the cost of a millisecond of engineering labor time.

This increases our CI compute costs by 30%.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#330
post #274

The reason this makes sense, at least for Github, is because the only valid reason to run your own action runners is compliance. And if you are doing it for compliance, price doesn't really matter. You don't really have a choice. If you've been running your runners on your own infra for cost reasons, you're not really that interesting to the Github business.

Github runners are slow. We're using WarpBuild and they are still cheaper per-minute, even with all the changes Github has made. Then there's the fact that the machines are faster, so we are using fewer minutes.

There are multiple competitors in this space. If you are (or were) paying for Github runners for any reason, you really shouldn't be.

Post reply on HN