It's funny, when we were acquired they started moving us to Github actions but it seems that maybe we should stay on our old crusty self-hosted Jenkins setup...

You should never entirely depend on a third party service for deployments.

Been burned too many times on that one.

Same thoughts - we use an action to ship to production, its builds an image, pushes it to ECS which triggers a deployment.

We can't be blocked here. Seems silly what we settled on this, but for a long time GitHub had been reliable enough for many years, but things are sliding down the pan as of late.

./deploy.sh

It is a control pain

It's always best to be portable - always be able to do builds and releases locally (at least, once you get the keys - it shouldn't be possible by default), then add things like github actions on top as convenience.

Self host gitlab. If you already host runners it’s not a big lift.

Same here. You’d think they could at least separate out the GitHub-hosted and self-hosted runners, so you’re still able to dispatch jobs if the self-hosted runners are down.

Depending on how many thousands of $ per year, it would probably be cheaper and more reliable to self-host GitLab. It's better in terms of organisational structure (you can have one, including access and secret inheritance), and (personal view) Gitlab-CI is better than GitHub Actions because it doesn't push you towards a JavaScript/NPM style dependency hell. And it's actually fairly easy to self-hosted, with options from a single machine with an omnibus package that handles everything to a full blown autoscaling Kubernetes deployment.

> For a service we're paying thousands of $ per year for even though we host runners ourselves...

Wait until you charge you for self-hosting runners.

Oh wait. They already tried.

Sure. Don't use GitHub.

You can now hire me as an overpriced consultant instead of paying Microsoft.