alt Hacker NewsFun thing is that almost every other CI as a service provider charges you in some shape or form for self hosted runners. CircleCI limits the number of self-hosted Job Running in parallel based on your plan and charges a fixed base fee per seat.
So moving away from GHA will not make self-hosted runners free, they’ll move into a different pricing structure that may or may not be beneficial.
And I think charging for self-hosted runners is actually fine. They’re not free for the provider either - log aggregation, caching of artifacts, runner scheduling, implementing the runner software etc are non-trivial problems for any larger CI system.
So I’m actually fine with the proposed change since it also gives me the power as a customer to say “hey, I’m paying for this, fix it.”
Replies
I also think its fine and fair to charge for the general GHA infrastructure that one would also be using with self-hosted runners.
I suspect that they weren't looking to make money off of those charges, but rather use that as a forcing function to push more usage of their managed runner (which are higher margin) which didn't work out. Rather than everyone saying "damn that makes alternatives financially unattactive", a good chunk of the feedback was "sure I'll pay those charges as long as I don't have to use the shitty managed runners".
Depends if they are using another CI provider or running Jenkins themselves.
But also, Circle CI would be a known cost change. Right now, the only thing you know is that GitHub wants to start charging money. You have no idea what new pricing model they come up with.
The cost of the control plan for Github and the cost of their runners are not equal. Yet this new plan seems to say a self-hosted minute is counted the same as a hosted minute, since self-hosted minutes count towards the 2000 included minutes.
Gitlab enters the room, where self-hosted runners are as free as in free beer (maintenance yes, but no limit on runners and no pricing expect on a per-user basis).
> So I’m actually fine with the proposed change since it also gives me the power as a customer to say “hey, I’m paying for this, fix it.”
I’m paying for GitHub Action now and there is zero recourse (other than leaving). Giving them money doesn’t change anything.
I’d be more willing to pay if GH Actions wasn’t so flakey and frustrating (for hosted or self-hosted runners, I use both). At least self-hosted runners are way cheaper _and_ have better performance.
We already pay for the “control plane” for GHA, though.
You might as well say that we should be paying per PR and Issue because, well, that part can’t just be free, you know?
Rent a dedicated server, install gitea on it, set up a gitea action runner. Private, secure, cheap git hosting with 99% compatible actions.
The problem is that they are charging a per-minute fee, and a fee at the same order-of-magnitude as actually running the tests. If you're offering cloud-hosted runners for $0.002/minute, asking that same $0.002/minute as an orchestrator fee for self-hosted runners is just insulting.
Charging for self-hosted runners is indeed not a huge deal, and I bet they wouldn't have gotten the same kind of backlash if they charged for it via a per-seat, per-run, per-gigabyte, or per-log-line fee. And if GHA hadn't been so poorly maintained...