3 ms·

I don't think it's that bad for CircleCI. CircleCI's focus is CI/CD and it's highly unlikely GitHub is going to do it as well as them. It's hardly commoditized

by Axsuul 7y ago

I don't think it's that bad for CircleCI. CircleCI's focus is CI/CD and it's highly unlikely GitHub is going to do it as well as them. It's hardly commoditized technology. Their current customers are already heavily integrated with them and their orbs offering is further solidifying that relationship. Also, GitHub is expanding the CI/CD market with Actions so competitors in this space are likely to benefit. Furthermore: - waffle.io was acquired and shutdown by the acquiree - TravisCI was sold to a private equity firm and lost their way

rumanator 7y ago
> it's highly unlikely GitHub is going to do it as well as them. They don't need to. They only need to be able to run tasks in sequence when triggered by some event, and the rest just builds itself. An integrated solution that bundles issue tracking, CICD pipelines, and package/container repository always beats spreading each feature throughout multiple separate service providers.
- Axsuul 7y ago
  > An integrated solution that bundles issue tracking, CICD pipelines, and package/container repository always beats spreading each feature throughout multiple separate service providers. I agree but with GitHub actions, it's also possible for CircleCI to build a tight integration. When it comes down to it, each CI system has its idiosyncracies so choosing a CI system isn't as simple as how tightly integrated it is (e.g. how flexible it is with Docker, or the way it builds containers, or running multi-container setups)
lbotos 7y ago
> I don't think it's that bad for CircleCI. CircleCI's focus is CI/CD and it's highly unlikely GitHub is going to do it as well as them. I don't think it's bad for entrenched CircleCI users, sure, but I do think it's bad for prospective CircleCI users, who, are likely using GitHub already, so why would they not use something tightly integrated? If you don't think GitHub is going to try and increase adoption of this tool then why did they build it? (Work at GitLab; Opinions are my own)

by Axsuul 7y ago

rumanator 7y ago

> it's highly unlikely GitHub is going to do it as well as them. They don't need to. They only need to be able to run tasks in sequence when triggered by some event, and the rest just builds itself. An integrated solution that bundles issue tracking, CICD pipelines, and package/container repository always beats spreading each feature throughout multiple separate service providers.

Axsuul 7y ago
> An integrated solution that bundles issue tracking, CICD pipelines, and package/container repository always beats spreading each feature throughout multiple separate service providers. I agree but with GitHub actions, it's also possible for CircleCI to build a tight integration. When it comes down to it, each CI system has its idiosyncracies so choosing a CI system isn't as simple as how tightly integrated it is (e.g. how flexible it is with Docker, or the way it builds containers, or running multi-container setups)

lbotos 7y ago

> I don't think it's that bad for CircleCI. CircleCI's focus is CI/CD and it's highly unlikely GitHub is going to do it as well as them. I don't think it's bad for entrenched CircleCI users, sure, but I do think it's bad for prospective CircleCI users, who, are likely using GitHub already, so why would they not use something tightly integrated? If you don't think GitHub is going to try and increase adoption of this tool then why did they build it? (Work at GitLab; Opinions are my own)