3 ms·
It's definitely more pleasant to use than Jenkins, but Jenkins is as painful as it gets. 90% of the times it's some ancient setup that nobody knows how it work
by WhyNotHugo 5y ago
It's definitely more pleasant to use than Jenkins, but Jenkins is as painful as it gets.
90% of the times it's some ancient setup that nobody knows how it works. And the amount of hands-on required to keep in working is waaaay higher than other CI pipelines.
Circle CI is also not very nice at all. Things like GitLab CI or Sourcehut Builds are sooo much simpler, lighter and faster in comparison.
- danpalmer 5y agoJenkins sucks from a UI perspective, and from a maintenance perspective, but it's very powerful in ways that most other CIs are not. The classic example for us was concurrency control. We did continuous delivery, and so it's critical that you're not trying to release the `master` branch multiple times concurrently, especially when database migrations might happen, etc. With Jenkins you could quite easily say "only 1 of this job at a time", but this wasn't (at the time) a feature of CircleCI, GitLab, or Travis. GitHub Actions added it about 2 years ago I think, and Semaphore has had something similar for a while. While I agree Jenkins is painful, having this feature and the reliability it brought reduced pain significantly. CircleCI not having this feature, for us, caused a lot of pain.