alt Hacker NewsSo much vague outrage over nothing. That CI system created by so called monkeys is the one of the best free CI service in the world. Not everyone has the millions of dollars like Zig Foundation to create their own CI servers.
After that they appreciate GitHub Sponsors, but say it is now a complete liability just because a project leader left. What are the actual changes? Any new rule? But no, it is now a "liability" and we should accept it.
Honestly speaking I like how big projects are exploring new hosting options. But there is no need to attack other platforms like this to promote your new host.
Replies
Anyone who has ever used Gitlab, or dare my foul mouth say Jenkins, has experienced a better system than Github actions.
Unless it's miraculously improved recently as it's been a couple years for me, they didn't even document their regex/pattern matching. Best I could find via searching was that it was whatever Ruby used, which wasn't any kind of real standard.
I don't want to call anyone names, but whoever defends said system deserves some ribbing.
The best free CI system in the world has macOS 15 runners running at 75% capacity due to a background process that consumes 100% CPU [1]. The problem is known to them since May but not fixed half a year later.
> That CI system created by so called monkeys is the one of the best free CI service in the world.
It really isn't (look at Gitlab's for comparison), the only advantage of Github CI is that it offers free Mac runners.
You are not talking a out github actions? Monkeys would have done it better.
The only good thing about it is their very generous limits for "open source" projects (it doesn't even have to be free software AFAIK, just the source has to be visible to everyone).
The CI service itself is an absolute trash fire caused by the usual Microsoft NIH, and if they have financial means not to deal with it anymore, I see no reason for them to waste their limited development time on dealing with it.
I'm pretty sure the Zig Foundation does not have millions of dollars, contrary to Microsoft which has a market capitalization in the trillions, but consistently produces flaming garbage, product after product.
CI's job for me is to just run a nix flake
[dead]
> So much vague outrage over nothing.
So you just chose to ignore the technical problems we have with GitHub Actions and then say there are no problems. That's certainly a take.
> That CI system created by so called monkeys is the one of the best free CI service in the world.
We self-host all our CI machines so the "free" hosted runners have no relevance here.
> Not everyone has the millions of dollars like Zig Foundation to create their own CI servers.
We don't have "millions of dollars". If only!
I'd also note that we spend our money very efficiently; most of our CI machines are consumer-grade hardware hosted in team member's homes. We don't just throw endless amounts of money at cloud providers.
> After that they appreciate GitHub Sponsors, but say it is now a complete liability just because a project leader left. What are the actual changes? Any new rule? But no, it is now a "liability" and we should accept it.
GitHub Sponsors is a liability because Microsoft can increase their cut at any time, or even axe it outright if they don't think it's profitable for them anymore. This risk is very real considering that, as Andrew pointed out, the feature has been neglected for years. It is objectively less risky for us to have donors use a platform like Every.org.