I think Github Actions is just a lead for Microsoft customers to use paid Azure DevOps. It is bad intentionally.
GitHub Actions is slowly killing engineering teams
91–100 of 219 posts
Re: GitHub Actions is slowly killing engineering teams
#92I've used many of the CI systems that the author has here, and I've done a lot of CircleCI and GitHub Actions, and I don't come to quite the same conclusions. One caveat though, I haven't used Buildkite, which the author seems to recommend. Over the years CI tools have gone from specialist to generalist. Jenkins was originally very good at building Java projects and not much else, Travis had explicit steps for Rails…
> but... the log browser? So what, just download the file, at least the CI works. They answer your "so what" quite directly: >> Build logs look like terminal output, because they are terminal output. ANSI colors work. Your test framework’s fancy formatting comes through intact. You’re not squinting at a web UI that has eaten your escape codes and rendered them as mojibake. This sounds minor. It is not minor. You are…
> Having to look mentally ignore ANSI escape codes in raw logs (let alone being unable to unable to search for text through them) is annoying as hell, to put it mildly.
You have a tool here, which is noted elsewhere: it's "less --raw". Also there's another tool which analyzes your logs and color codes them: "lnav".
lnav is incredibly powerful and helps understanding what's happening, when, where. It can also tail logs. Recommended usage is "your_command 2>&1 | lnav -t".
Re: GitHub Actions is slowly killing engineering teams
#93I really wonder in which universe people are living. GitHub Actions was a godsend when it was first released and it still continues to be great. It has just the right amount of abstractions. I've used many CIs in the past and I'd definitely prefer GA over any of them.
Re: GitHub Actions is slowly killing engineering teams
#94I really wonder in which universe people are living. GitHub Actions was a godsend when it was first released and it still continues to be great. It has just the right amount of abstractions. I've used many CIs in the past and I'd definitely prefer GA over any of them.
Have you used the log viewer? Because I swear the log viewer is the biggest letdown. I love that GitHub Actions is deeply integrated into GitHub. I hate the log viewer, and that's like one of the core parts of it.
Re: GitHub Actions is slowly killing engineering teams
#95The winning strategy for all CI environments is a build system facsimile that works on your machine, your CI's machine, and your test/uat/production with as few changes between them as your project requirements demand. I start with a Makefile. The Makefile drives everything. Docker (compose), CI build steps, linting, and more. Sometimes a project outgrows it; other times it does not. But it starts with one unitary to…
This line of thinking inspired me to write mkincl [0] which makes Makefiles composable and reusable across projects. We're a couple of years into adoption at work and it's proven to be both intuitive and flexible. [0]: https://github.com/mkincl/mkincl
[flagged]
Re: GitHub Actions is slowly killing engineering teams
#96RA the specified array and query polkit prior to k-mod in o-space. Xenosystem upload
#git --clone [URL]
Re: GitHub Actions is slowly killing engineering teams
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jenkins had a lot of issues and I’m glad to not be using it overall, but I did like defining pipelines in Groovy and I’ll take Groovy over YAML all day.
Jenkins, like many complex tools, is as good or bad as you make it. My last two employers had rock solid Jenkins environments because they were set up as close to vanilla as possible. But yes, Groovy is a much better language for defining pipelines than YAML. Honestly pretty much any programming language at all is better than YAML. YAML is fine for config files, but not for something as complex as defining a CI pipel…
biggest flaw of jenkins is that by default it runs on builder env, as it was made pre-container era. But I do like integration with viewing tests and benchmarks directly in the project, stuff that most CI/CD systems lack
Re: GitHub Actions is slowly killing engineering teams
#98The problem isn't CI/CD; the problem is "programming in configuration". We've somehow normalized a dev loop that involves `git commit -m "try fix"`, waiting 10 minutes, and repeating. Local reproduction of CI environments is still the missing link for most teams.
Re: GitHub Actions is slowly killing engineering teams
#99GHA is quite empowering for solo devs. I just dev on my tiny machine and outsource all heavy work to GHA, and basically let Claude rip on the errors, rinse repeat.
Re: GitHub Actions is slowly killing engineering teams
#100I don't care if this is an advertisement for buildkite masquerading as a blog post or if this is just an honest rant. Either way, I gotta say it speaks a lot of truth.