what highly critical comments so far. Every stipulated problem resonates so well for me. I don't really care what the solution is or will be, they are addressin

what highly critical comments so far. Every stipulated problem resonates so well for me. I don't really care what the solution is or will be, they are addressing the right problem imo, which is overlooked in the CI/builder space. So many days are wasted for me because of the ridiculous back and forth to the buildserver when adding or changing automation. My experience is mostly with Gitlab, and I dare to say it's an absolute business strategy for them to lock you in, into the buildserver. They've had the option to use local build runners, but that one lacks fundamental functionality which results in you having to change the Yaml file locally, temporarily, just to extrapolate templates and such. It's horrible. There are so many tickets asking for feature parity for this local-runner and the actual runner on the build server; it's simply ignored or false promises are made. Afaics, Github actions won't do any better. I do expect Dagger integrates well with Gitlab such that I can download logs, artifacts and such from the Gitlab UI. But I'm afraid if something like Dagger catches on, the existing CI platforms will gatekeep functionality through pure yaml instead of allowing API calls from your pipeline. That would mean something like dagger will have to rely on compiling to a backend language, probably YAML. However, when did the 'one-ring-to-rule-them-all' approach ever work? So, basically my question is, what's the incentive for the current CI providers to play nicely? And isn't it trying to follow multiple moving targets?