5 ms·
> We're starting to have the conversation of "do we need to replace GitHub as our CI/CD pipeline?" Did you have the conversation "do we need to move from $what
by elric 1mo ago
> We're starting to have the conversation of "do we need to replace GitHub as our CI/CD pipeline?"
Did you have the conversation "do we need to move from $whatever CI/CD to GitHub Actions?" beforehand? What were the arguments in favour?
- beardedetim 1mo agoIt's a ~year old product that started on GH. So this is the first time this team has had to think through "okay, so this isn't as reliable as it was at $oldjob."
- Macha 1mo agoNot the same company but similar discussions here: - It was believed that GitHub would be more reliable than our self hosted Gitlab CI runners. This has proven to be very false. - It was believed it would be easier to write tooling. I’m not on the dev tooling team, so can’t confirm if they found it true or not, but from the outside I see a lot more “Github can’t do that” than I did “Gitlab can’t do it”
- Normal_gaussian 1mo agoThose are both hilarious to me. In my last FTE role we had the exact opposite beliefs - we wanted to leave GitLabs increases in pricing and move to annual sub, but the reliability of self-hosted runners and the flexibility (and clarity) of the CI system was fantastic.
- dataengineer56 1mo ago> Those are both hilarious to me. Why is it hilarious to believe that the industry leader might be better at something than doing it yourself?
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- Normal_gaussian 1mo agoThe hilarious part is more the absurdity and cognitive disconnect experienced when reading about serious evaluations that went in a completely opposite direction to those directly participated in.
- _kblcuk_ 28d agoJenkins was (and still is) a PITA to maintain. Moved two different companies off from it to gh actions (self-managed runners in case of a second company), never had any regrets.