Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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.
[flagged]
Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
391–400 of 853 posts
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#392Getting acquired by Microsoft is a death sentence for any product. The only variable is how long after acquisition before they gut it. It's almost never right away. GitHub was acquired 7 years ago, but it started showing symptoms perhaps 2 years ago. With this I think it's clear the wound was fatal. GitHub will stumble on for a few more years with ever-decreasing quality, before going the way of Skype. So, I guess we…
> The only variable is how long after acquisition before they gut it.
Considering that the lifetime of our sun system is finite that statement is undeniably true.
Also we don't know how a non-Microsoft GitHub could have developed.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
GitLab CI is quite good. Have been using it for several years.
I can't tolerate it. The split between tag and branch pipelines seems like intentional obfuscation with no upsides (you can't build non-latest commit from a branch, and when you use a tag to select the commit, GitLab intentionally hides all branch-related info, and skips jobs that depend on branch names). "CI components" are not really components, but copy-paste of YAML into global state. Merging of jobs merges objec…
I have fond memories of using GitLab CI in 2018–2019 and I'm still pissed GitHub didn't just life and shift that kind of a model. Not sure about the particular issues you're running into but I remember GitLab supporting a lot of the YAML features missing in GitHub like anchors in order to build/compose stuff.
Oh and turns out GitHub also has that now: https://github.blog/changelog/2025-09-18-actions-yaml-anchor...
UPDATE: okay they botched it https://frenck.dev/github-actions-yaml-anchors-aliases-merge...
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate on what you're referring to? Sounds interesting.
https://github.com/actions/runner/issues/3792 fun video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3_95BZYIVs
Wow, that's horrifyingly bad. Like "didn't think about it for more than 30 seconds before committing" bad.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#395Earlier quoted context omitted.
short-term maybe, but piracy is making a come back
It never left
It actually kind of did for a lot of people. Streaming was cheap, available, and convenient.
Now it's none of those three. Once again, choosing not to pirate is just an objectively wrong choice. It's a worse experience, with worse quality, worse availability, and at a higher price tag.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#396I got contacted by our rep a couple weeks ago, who informed me of this news. I thought it was a disaster and it really pissed me off. The rep couldn't even explain the reasoning well. It basically summed up to "because we can" and "where are you going to go?". He was shocked to find out that I didn't like it. We currently self-host on kubernets/aws. The thing that really got to me isn't the new charge per se. It's th…
This kinda change also has some different gears turning in my head. At $0.002 / build-minute, some of our large software integration tests would cost us around 15 - 20 cents. Some of our ansible integration tests would be 5 - 10 cents - and we run like 50 - 100 of those per day. Some deployments might cost us a cent or two. Apples to oranges, naturally, but like this, our infra-jenkins master would pay for itself in…
> And I mean sure, everything is kinda janky on Jenkins, but everything falls into an expectable corridor of jank you get used to.
Self-hosting Jenkins on an EC2 instance is probably going to result in a _better_ experience at this point. Github Cache is barely better than just downloading assets directly, and with Jenkins you can trivially use a local disk for caching.
Or if you're feeling fancy and want more isolation, host a local RustFS installation and use S3 caching in your favorite tools.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I right in assuming it’s not the amount of payment but the transition from $0 to paying a bill at all? I’m definitely sure it’s saving me more than $140 a month to have CI/CD running and I’m also sure I’d never break even on the opportunity cost of having someone write or set one up internally if someone else’s works - and this is the key - just as well. But investment in CI/CD is investing in future velocity. The…
You're sounding a lot like a Microsoft damage control artist.
Keep this kind of comment on reddit, not here.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#398Earlier 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…
I don't think Forgejo is competitive in the markets GitHub makes most of their money from, nor does it seem Forgejo developers want it to be.
Where does GitHub even make most of their money? Their compliance posture makes them a non-starter for any regulated industries (which is atypical for a Microsoft property, generally MS is the market leader for compliance in all of their products).
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#399This 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?
"Outrageous"? It's two tenths of a cent per minute. How much will it impact you, really, particularly relative to the cost of compute?
It's outrageous because self hosted runners are... self hosted.
And the entire solution just sucks. It's bad, bad software. It barely works a lot of the time.
The only reason they're doing this is because they can. Which is usually a really stupid reason. And here, it is. So, that's outrageous.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#400This seems totally unreasonable. How can they justify charging you based on usage when it's running on and using your resources?