> If your CI can do things that you can't do locally: that is a problem.

IME this is where all the issues lie. Our CI pipeline can push to a remote container registry, but we can't do this locally. CI uses wildly different caching strategies to local builds, which diverges. Breaking up builds into different steps means that you need to "stash" the output of stages somewhere. If all your CI does is `make test && make deploy` then sure, but when you grow beyond that (my current project takes 45 minutes with a _warm_ cache) you need to diverge, and that's where the problems start.

> If your CI can do things that you can't do locally: that is a problem.

Probably most of the times when this is an actual problem, is building across many platforms. I'm running Linux x86_64 locally, but some of my deliverables are for macOS and Windows and ARM, and while I could cross-compile for all of them on Linux (macOS was a bitch to get working though), it always felt better to compile on the hardware I'm targeting.

Sometimes there are Windows/macOS-specific failures, and if I couldn't just ssh in and correct/investigate, and instead had to "change > commit > push" in an endless loop, it's possible I'd quite literally would lose my mind.

> If your CI can do things that you can't do locally: that is a problem.

Completely agree.

> I'm a huge fan of "train as you fight", whatever build tools you have locally should be what's used in CI.

That is what I am doing, having my GitHub Actions just call the Make targets I am using locally.

> I mean, at some point you are bash calling some other language anyway.

Yes, shell scripts and or task runners(Make, Just, Task etc) are really just plumbing around calling other tools. Which is why it feels like a smell to me when you need something more.