Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

resources.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 853 posts

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#611

Post by madeofpalk »

golovast wrote: post #131

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…

It seems clear to me this is in response to all the third party GHA runners who were undercutting GitHub by just reselling cloud instances for cheaper.

They’ve lowered their runner costs to compete, and introduce minimum charge to discourage abd make sure they still get paid.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#613

Post by justsid »

komali2 wrote: post #609
justsid wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gitea scales really badly with large repos in my experience. Gitlab works a lot better mostly because you can just throw more hardware at it. This is with a pretty large git repo and a lot of daily commits.

On the other hand, gitlab is a memory hog. You need a big vm dedicated to it. We were on codeberg for a couple years and it was fine.

Yeah Gitlab is a pig, but that’s what I meant with you can throw hardware at the problem. I’ve been meaning to check out Codeberg for personal project hosting since it seems to address the shortcomings of gitea

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#614

Post by colechristensen »

zahlman wrote: post #264
colechristensen wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't trust devs to run things, to have git hooks installed, to have a clean environment, to not have uncommitted changes, to not have a diverging environment on their laptop. Actions let you test things in multiple environments, to test them with credentials against resources devs don't have access to, to do additional things like deploys, managing version numbers, on and on With CI, especially pull requests, yo…

> You don't trust devs to run things, to have git hooks installed, to have a clean environment, to not have uncommitted changes, to not have a diverging environment on their laptop. ... Is nobody in charge on the team? Or is it not enough that devs adhere to a coding standard, work to APIs etc. but you expect them to follow a common process to get there (as opposed to what makes them individually most productive)? >…

It seems like you may not have much experience working in groups of people.

>... Is nobody in charge on the team?

This isn't how things work. You save your "you MUST do these things" for special rare instructions. A complex series of checks for code format/lint/various tests... well that can all be automated away.

And you just don't get large groups of people all following the same series of steps several times a day, particularly when the steps change over time. It doesn't matter how "in charge" anybody is, neither the workplace nor an open source project are army boot camp. You won't get compliance and trying to enforce it will make everybody hate you and turn you into an asshole.

Automation makes our lives simpler and higher quality, particularly CI checks. They're such an easy win.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#615

Post by gheltllck »

duped wrote: post #196
hedgehog wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, what are you doing that has over 1000 hours a month of action runtime?

1 hour build/test time, 20 devs, that's 50 runs a month. Totally possible.

GH actions templates don’t build all branches by default. I guess it’s due to them not wanting the free tier to use to much resources. But I consider it an anti-pattern to not build everything at each push.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#616

Post by rssoconnor »

vkou wrote: post #83
groundzeros2015 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Netflix one worked

It worked to push me to unsubscribe.

I also unsubscribed, but even with you and me out, from what I read, it was a profitable move on Netflix's part. I guess I can't fault them.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#617

Post by awenix »

I understand that orchestration,log storage, keeping software updated can cost money, which they seem to recover from charging for software. Hopefully there is support now included with self hosted runners being charged.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#618

Post by bigbuppo »

foobarian wrote: post #468
throwaway150 wrote: post #455

It is us, developers, who convinced our management to purchase GitHub Enterprise to be our forge. We didn't pay any heed to the values of software freedom. A closed source, proprietary software had good features. We saw that and convinced our management to purchase it. Never mind what cost it would impose in the future when the good software gets bad owners. Never mind that there were alternatives that were inferior…

> alternatives that were inferior Actually there were alternatives that were far superior (seriously, no way to group projects?) but also more than 2x as expensive. If GH "fixes the glitch" then it will be plan B time.

What are these superior alternatives? Never could stand GitHub and I'm suffering GitLab at the moment.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#619

Post by franklyworks »

bdangubic wrote: post #587
Nextgrid wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's value in enforcing checks on the server side to avoid people accidentally/maliciously merging code that doesn't pass said checks. Checks can be linters, security scanners, etc.

why on the server?!

This was probably the question to ask before declaring it all as junk.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#620

Post by Novosell »

Nextgrid wrote: post #514
throwaway150 wrote: post #455

It is us, developers, who convinced our management to purchase GitHub Enterprise to be our forge. We didn't pay any heed to the values of software freedom. A closed source, proprietary software had good features. We saw that and convinced our management to purchase it. Never mind what cost it would impose in the future when the good software gets bad owners. Never mind that there were alternatives that were inferior…

Takes like these do not account for the value you gained by using the software in the meantime. Here are 2 scenarios: 1) company uses exclusively free software, spends more time dealing with the shortcomings of said software than developing product, product is half baked and doesn't sell well, company dies. 2) company uses proprietary but cheap/free (as in beer) software that does the job really well, focuses on deve…

Your scenarios seem to hinge on OSS having lots of warts while proprietary software is perfect.

In reality you have to also make concessions with proprietary software, so the moat is not as large as your comment makes it seem imo.

Post reply on HN