3 ms·

I’m a big fan of GitHub Actions so take this with that in mind. GitLab (self-hosted) is very reliable however GitLab CI/CD is very different in design to GitHub

I’m a big fan of GitHub Actions so take this with that in mind. GitLab (self-hosted) is very reliable however GitLab CI/CD is very different in design to GitHub Actions: it’s much more a bunch of shell scripts stuck together with YAML. Personally, I’d never go back (unless they redesign it).

danogentili 5y ago
Personally, I hate Github Actions from the bottom of my heart. Ever since Travis CI sold its soul and I've been forced to use Github Actions, and I've come to hate every single moment I have to work with some broken or buggy action, with the inability to restart only failed jobs (they added this vital feature only a few weeks ago, 2+ years after launching actions), with slow job spin-up times, which are only slightly reduced when using the self-hosted, RAM-hogging action runners which are only capable of running one job per instance, forcing me to waste RAM setting up multiple instances of the runners, each bundling its own copy of node and the .NET runtime. I've been using gitlab CI @ work, and I absolutely love its reliability and ease of use and configuration.
- deathanatos 5y ago
  … yeah, we just moved some stuff to Actions, and it's been rather disappointing as onboarding goes. While the YAML represents jobs as a DAG, it seems like Actions can't actually evaluate them as such, and it inserts dependencies where none exist, i.e., it inserts stalls in the pipeline. Action builds aren't cached, so they're slow. The default token can't be extended to allow cross-repository access, forcing you to write your own app that can. The jobs, not the workflow, is the CI status/result, so you can't branch protect on a workflow. (You have to just have a dummy job … but you can't have an empty job, no, it has to run `true`…)
- rezonant 5y ago
  I've been very happy with CircleCI
  - stnmtn 5y ago
    CircleCI has had multiple outages for us this past week, causing a lot of frustration.
    - rezonant 5y ago
      Interesting. None of our builds have failed due to CircleCI during that time period, or ever, that I can remember. We do maybe 5-10 builds a day during PST working hours. Not a huge volume but still would think it would have hit our radar. CircleCI's status page, which they are usually pretty good at updating, indicates two outages over the last two months, though one of them was a long one (9 hours?) but apparently only affected remote docker and machine runners. Neither of those were in the last week though.

danogentili 5y ago

Personally, I hate Github Actions from the bottom of my heart. Ever since Travis CI sold its soul and I've been forced to use Github Actions, and I've come to hate every single moment I have to work with some broken or buggy action, with the inability to restart only failed jobs (they added this vital feature only a few weeks ago, 2+ years after launching actions), with slow job spin-up times, which are only slightly reduced when using the self-hosted, RAM-hogging action runners which are only capable of running one job per instance, forcing me to waste RAM setting up multiple instances of the runners, each bundling its own copy of node and the .NET runtime. I've been using gitlab CI @ work, and I absolutely love its reliability and ease of use and configuration.

deathanatos 5y ago
… yeah, we just moved some stuff to Actions, and it's been rather disappointing as onboarding goes. While the YAML represents jobs as a DAG, it seems like Actions can't actually evaluate them as such, and it inserts dependencies where none exist, i.e., it inserts stalls in the pipeline. Action builds aren't cached, so they're slow. The default token can't be extended to allow cross-repository access, forcing you to write your own app that can. The jobs, not the workflow, is the CI status/result, so you can't branch protect on a workflow. (You have to just have a dummy job … but you can't have an empty job, no, it has to run `true`…)
rezonant 5y ago
I've been very happy with CircleCI
- stnmtn 5y ago
  CircleCI has had multiple outages for us this past week, causing a lot of frustration.
  - rezonant 5y ago
    Interesting. None of our builds have failed due to CircleCI during that time period, or ever, that I can remember. We do maybe 5-10 builds a day during PST working hours. Not a huge volume but still would think it would have hit our radar. CircleCI's status page, which they are usually pretty good at updating, indicates two outages over the last two months, though one of them was a long one (9 hours?) but apparently only affected remote docker and machine runners. Neither of those were in the last week though.