5 ms·
All the time. It’s not even that reliable when it’s up. Total embarrassment for us when we have to explain to management. If I started again I’d probably use s
by hughrr 5y ago
All the time. It’s not even that reliable when it’s up. Total embarrassment for us when we have to explain to management.
If I started again I’d probably use something standalone, light weight and 100% self hosted ie GoCD. I’d change the operating model to keep GitHub as a collaboration place but not have any dependencies on it for pipeline. We have other issues as well like the GitHub flow mod being inadequate for maintaining stability on high traffic repos too. I’d pull from master into a production branch and run that off line entirely.
- modo_mario 5y agoFrom what I heard it was fine until Microsoft bought it and decided to bring over .net code (and people) from azure devops to replace a bunch of the pre-existing github actions stuff for some reason.
- bbrree66 5y agoWhat actions stuff existed before the acquisition?
- tester34 5y agoYou're saying that .NET is not capable or bad when it comes to handling such a tools like building systems?
- Jenk 5y agoI infered that it is more about Microsoft and their management of software development than I did about it being anything technical related.
- prepend 5y agoI read this as more a situation where an existing architecture got stuff shoehorned in for non-technology reasons. I don’t think there’s a problem with .NET inherently. But swapping out components for new tech stacks for no user or tech reason is likely to introduce bugs and at best will negatively impact schedule. Although it would be interesting to hear any new company that chose .NET over other alternatives. I really likes how Spolsky explained why they used the MS stack [0] to build stackoverflow, among other things. [0] https://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Seth-Juarez/Joel-Spolsky-Talks-About-Building-Stack-Overflow-and-Values-Developers-Care-About https://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Seth-Juarez/Joel-Spolsky-Tal...
- Jenk 5y ago> GoCD Don't. Just don't. I'm assuming that the fundamental flaws* of GoCD haven't been fixed, based on the knowledge that in 2015 they (ThoughtWorks) still hadn't addressed them, and I think 5-6 years isn't long enough for them to be addressed. *Pipelines, as modeled in GoCD, were so inflexible that any kind of flow resulted in having many, many, pipelines configured. To the point that the number pipelines you operate and maintain is actually the multiple of any fork in logic you need.
- hughrr 5y agoThanks for the heads up. I will avoid that then!
- vergessenmir 5y agoHate to pile on GoCD. But I second this. In 2015 they were a contender when Jenkins was showing it's age and Gitlab was in its infancy. Development was fairly stagnant and felt 'closed' to external contributions. I was hopeful, but ultimately disappointed.
- hughrr 5y agoThanks. This sort of stuff is why I come here :)