Live data from Hacker News

Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

resources.github.com

411–420 of 853 posts

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#411

Oh great. I finally get used to GitHub Actions after Travis CI shat the bed, and now I have to find something else. Thanks, enshittification.

Hey man, that's not fair. They cannot enshittify what has always been shit to begin with.

Oh you sweet summer child

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#412

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...

used to self-host gitlab CI runners around the same year also for our long running CI's due to db migrations + prepared data loading for tests. we rent 7*4$ VPS, install gitlab CI runners on them, saving us from hundreds $$$ per month and 45mins/merge (with test running on main branch only) to 7*4$/month and 7-9mins/commit (yes, we run full test on each commit and let gitlab auto-cancel older one). with bonus: FE team get live version of their changes on each MR.

* its 7 VPS because we separated the tests by modules and we have 7 major modules. * edit: formatting

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#413
post #297

I’m genuinely excited about this. The GitHub actions platform is genuinely bad compared to circle or Travis but they’ve been totally crowded out because GitHub was just so easy to use. This has led to plenty of security issues and a general lack of innovation in the ci space. Hopefully by this pricing structure change we’ll see more investment in ci tooling across the industry

GitHub Actions were never too easy to use. But they were cheap to use, so anything more expensive had trouble competing. Now the playing field is more level, yay. Fun for those who choose to migrate away.

This. There are plenty of good/better CICD solutions out there, but it's tricky to compete with "comes for free with our VCS". I guess it's clear now there is no such thing as a free lunch. I feel it's a good thing for the "CICD industry" that people will be looking around to alternatives, and do a honest Total Cost of Ownership analysis.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#414

I 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…

GitHub Actions runners are hard to self-host. The runner configuration and registration process is unnecessarily byzantine. [1] They can't cancel jobs cleanly. [2] There are consistency problems everywhere. [3] Their own documentations describes horrible things unless you use runners in JIT mode. Though JIT runners are not always removed after exit. If there is a worse self-hosted CI runner, I haven't yet met it. [1]…

And if you want any concurrency at all, you need 1 runner registration per concurrent job. And each runner needs its own user. And each runner requires a full and separate copy of the runner software, which is large (hundreds of megs) and self-updates.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely bananas; for my own CI workflow I'll have to pay $140+/month now just to run my own hardware.

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…

This is not investment in CI/CD. I already did that, by buying and investing in my own hardware, my own workflows, my own caching solution.

This is like if Dropbox started charging you money for the files you have stored on your backup hard drives.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#417

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...

I LOVE gitlab, but their new pricing is absurd. It feels like they are trying to shovelware their AI stuff. Their cheapest plan is more than 7x the cost of github, AND more expensive than github enterprise! And thats on the _cheapest_ non free gitlab plan. If you self host gitlab entirely, you can't even get branch/force-push protection. If they could bring their pricing to even just 2x github by having a NON-AI plan, I would purchase again in a heartbeat.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#418

I guess I’ll start to look at an alternative to GitHub self hosted runners. It’s been awhile since I looked. What’s a good alternative?

Are there any good CI systems to begin with? joking, but not really Jenkins has been rock solid, we are trying to migrate to Argo Workflows/Events, but there are a complaints (like deploying argo workflows with helm, such fun!)

I've been using dagger.io and it's been really nice to work with.

- runs locally

- has a language server: python, typescript, go, java, OR elixer

- has static typing

- the new caching mechanisms introduced in 0.19.4 are chef's kiss

I do not work for dagger and pay for it using the company credit card. A breath of fresh air after the unceasing misery and pain that is Gitlab and GHA.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#419
post #372

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…

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.

Representatives from the Dutch government recently had a chat with representatives from Forgejo because they are quite interested in migrating their SCM infrastructure from Github to Forgejo.

And trust me, they are running a lot of public and private repositories.

And there are many more orgs and govs throughout Europe doing similar things because there's a (growing) zeitgeist here that the Trump administration nor any American SaaS company can be trusted. This started, by the way, after Microsoft suspended the ICJ from using Microsoft 365 on orders from the White House.

Post reply on HN