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

651–660 of 853 posts

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#651

Post by danpalmer »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #529
danpalmer wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For them to do essentially nothing. Orchestration, logging, caching, result storage. It's not nothing. Whether it's worth it to you is a value judgement, and having run a bunch of different CI systems I'd say this is still at least competitive.

They are charging for storage separately already! Why are you lying ?

I know they charge for Artifact storage, but outside of uploaded artifacts I don't think that the logs and results of builds are billed separately?

Additionally, I thought that caching came out of a separate limit, and was not billed like artifact storage?

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#652

Post by csomar »

nine_k wrote: post #297
roxolotl wrote: post #59

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.

Github actions are expensive. However, they were free for public repos and you could self-host. That’s what made them “cheap”.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#654

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

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…

> learn from our mistakes and convince our teams and management to use community-maintained, libre alternatives

Every company I've been at that tried to self-host something like GitLab, later moved to GitHub. Nobody in business cares if it's open source/free software. They care about managed hosting, centralized services, invoicing, etc. DIY is great for hobbyists and the cash-strapped.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#655

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

noahbp wrote: post #650
aetherspawn wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Azure DevOps is the gold standard for Pipelines.

That's not saying much, since it's still dependent upon the untyped mess that is YAML.

YAML is just a data format. Make your own "thing" that takes input in any format you desire, then dump it to YAML. (also, YAML is dynamically typed, and supports explicit typing, but the parser can choose to ignore it)

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#656

Post by SpaceNoodled »

bikelang wrote: post #642
Schnitz wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitHub isn’t even good, it’s just the mediocre default everybody uses. PRs were fantastic and the best thing ever - 15 years ago!

Just curious - what do you think the current best git platforms are?

git

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#657

Post by narrator »

bikelang wrote: post #642
Schnitz wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitHub isn’t even good, it’s just the mediocre default everybody uses. PRs were fantastic and the best thing ever - 15 years ago!

Just curious - what do you think the current best git platforms are?

What ever happened to Hudson/Jenkins? That was the full featured CI/CD solution before github actions.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#658

Post by templar_snow »

manquer wrote: post #524
templar_snow wrote: post #424

Absolutely ridiculous. Just absolutely abhorrent and downright abusive move on Microsoft's part.

> abhorrent and downright abusive move Is it that egregious?. I read it as they are redistributing the costs. It is in combination dropping the managed runner costs by a good margin and charging for the orchestration infrastructure. The log storage and real time streaming infra isn't free for them (not $84/month/runner expensive perhaps but certainly not cheap ) We don't need to use the orchestration layer at all, ev…

I can definitely hope for more competition and new providers, yes - good point

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#659

Post by rcoder »

tonfreed wrote: post #341
tetha wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Last place I worked had long running end to end tests that would take 30 minutes on GHA (compared to maybe 5 locally) on every PR. This is going to make that a very expensive endeavour

We host a fair bit of Terraform code in a repos on GitHub, including the project that bootstraps and manages our GH org’s config: permissions, repos, etc.

Hilariously, the official Terraform provider for GitHub is full of N+1 API call patterns — aka exponential scaling hotspots — so even generating a plan requires making a separate (remote, rate-limited) API call to check things like the branch protection status of every “main” branch, every action and PR policy, etc. As of today it takes roughly 30 minutes to do a full plan, which has to run as part of CI to make sure the pushed TF code is valid.

With this change, we’ll be paying once to host our projects and again for the privilege of running our own code on our own machines when we push changes…and the bill will continue to grow exponentially b/c the speed of their API serves to set an artificial lower bound on the runtime of our basic tests.

(To be fair, “slow” and “Terraform” often show up and leave parties at suspiciously similar times, and GitHub is far from the only SaaS vendor whose revenue goes up when their systems get slower.)

Post reply on HN