It's effectively proven at this point that any good product that is run by a publicly traded company will turn to shit.
Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
631–640 of 853 posts
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#632Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#633Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Agreed. I worked with Gitlab CI on the daily from 2021 till 2024 and I started curating a diary of bugs and surprising behavior I encountered in Gitlab. No matter what I did, every time I touched our CI pipeline code I could be sure to run into yet another Gitlab bug.
This is also my experience with GitLab CI.
It’s great if you have relatively simple CI. If you have anything slightly more complicated (like multiple child pipelines for a monorepo) you’re going to have a rough time.
Every time I thought I understood GitLab CI, it would fail/behave in non-obvious ways.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#634Earlier quoted context omitted.
Runners aren’t fragile, workflows are. The runner software they provide is solid and I’ve never had an issue with it after administering self-hosted GitHub actions runners for 4 years. 100s of thousands of runners have taken jobs, done the work, destroyed themselves, and been replaced with clean runners, all without a single issue with the runners themselves. Workflows on the other hand, they have problems. The whole…
it's not the runners, it's the orchestration service that's the problem been working to move all our workflows to self hosted, on demand ephemeral runners. was severely delayed to find out how slipshod the Actions Runner Service was, and had to redesign to handle out-of-order or plain missing webhook events. jobs would start running before a workflow_job event would be delivered we've got it now that we can detect a…
The orchestration service has been rewritten from scratch multiple times, in different languages even. How anyone can get it this wrong is beyond me.
The one for azure devops is even worse though, pathetic.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#635It 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…
It's not my money man. It's still fine.
“not my money” thinking will always indirectly lead to bad things for you on a long enough timeline.
Edit: this got flagged, but if you end up in an unprofitable position because you chose Oracle as a vendor and they squeezed your company so hard they need to choose between paying you (either via a raise or via actually employing you) or staying with a vendor thats squeezing them; they will choose the latter, as its short term cheaper.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#636Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#637Say I wanted to run the GitHub Action's "self hosted" runner on my own infra, then integrate it with my repo using webhooks (like I would for other CI platforms). What value would I be losing?
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#638Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I don't work for Microsoft (in fact, I work for a competitor), and I think it's totally reasonable to charge for workflow executions. It's not like they're free to build, operate, and maintain.
Well, they provide it for free for the fee tier. And has been for ages. Perhaps they shouldn’t provide rugpull services if they cannot afford it.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#639Here are the practical implications and considerations to optimize for cost, given the new pricing. These are generic and ensure you think through your workflows and runners before making any changes. 1. Self-hosting runners is still cheaper than not Despite the $0.002/minute self-hosted runner tax, self-hosting runners on your cloud (aws/gcp/azure/...) remains the cheaper option. 2. Prefer larger runners If your wor…
Any thoughts on what to extent GitHub is subsidizing OSS development with its CI? This feels like one of the big issues that OSS projects might face when migrating to an alternative. What might a less GitHub centric CI ecosystem look like for OSS community?
Small to mid sized OSS projects benefit heavily from this. There is a size beyond which the free runner sizes become insufficient, but the assumption is that some form of monetization is figured out by that time.
For example, we have a lot of OSS projects using WarpBuild because performance and fast CI is important for productivity.
Without GitHub's free CI for public repos, the small projects and indies will get hit the hardest imo.
However, I do not know hard numbers to quantify the impact.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#640> We are introducing a $0.002 per-minute Actions cloud platform charge for all Actions workflows across GitHub-hosted and self-hosted runners. Charging for self-hosted runners is an interesting choice. That's the same cost as their smallest hosted runners [1] [1] - https://docs.github.com/en/billing/reference/actions-runner-...
Rugpull 101. It’s how you make money in the current economy.