4 ms·
GitLab has been doing an excellent work of integrating CI/CD tools with their code hosting solution; I'm guessing thats what you're talking about. Specifically
by pm90 9y ago
GitLab has been doing an excellent work of integrating CI/CD tools with their code hosting solution; I'm guessing thats what you're talking about.
Specifically for Github, I believe they want to focus on hosting and developing (reviewing and managing) code and not on owning the CI/CD tools. They do provide many many integrations with different tools (TravisCI, Jenkins etc.). Which is a good thing: I want Github to be working on making code development better and remain agnostic of pipeline tools, which come and go as fashion dictates (OK I'm being a little harsh but my point is that I should be able to choose my CI/CD tools while having all my code live in Github).
- colbyh 9y agoIt would benefit Github to own a CI/CD tool if said tool was used in the vast majority of projects and there was little worry about disrupting the rest. E.g. if Codeship was used by 99% of Github customers it would totally make sense for them to purchase the co and integrate more tightly. But since the pipeline space is varied and rich, as you say, they benefit quite a bit by being a centralized tool that connects to all of them. Just pointing out that should that change in the future (in some unrelated area, say code review as a service?) we could very well see GH plop down a ton of cash and break out of that "code development tools" vertical.
- moritzplassnig 9y agoI think that's a good point. There's quite some fragmentation in the cloud CI/CD space (if we look beyond Jenkins). If necessary, GitHub could still acquire down the road. The downside risk is small.