4 ms·
I would say GitHub is also missing CI. After having worked with GitHub Actions I cannot say I am impressed. It feels more like an MVP than a real CI system. It
by jeltz 4y ago
I would say GitHub is also missing CI. After having worked with GitHub Actions I cannot say I am impressed. It feels more like an MVP than a real CI system. It also as frequent outages.
- gtirloni 4y agoWhat do you think is a better CI system for a project hosted on GitHub?
- jeltz 4y agoI would say Jenkins is still the best CI system.
- mdaniel 4y agoCircleCI is the best system I've encountered so far that enables running locally what one can run "in the cloud." GH Actions has "act" which is some kind soul's attempt, but is ultimately emulation. The gitlab-runner binary is a cruel joke (I mention that both in support of "seems local CI running is damn hard" and also because GL allows just using it for CI of GH repos, presumably a feature from back before GHA existed) Earthly just switched their license to MIT, so that's something I intend to try out, and Dagger is a new entrant into that race, but (a) requires learning cuelang (b) shit itself when I last tried it
- danpalmer 4y agoI ported a lot of stuff from Jenkins and CircleCI to GitHub Actions, as well as building an iOS build/release pipeline with Actions, and honestly I don't understand this criticism. I find Actions to have a maturity far beyond how long it has existed for, with very strong primitives that compose better than anything else I've seen. GitLab CI always felt to me like it was a minor improvement over Travis, and that they hadn't yet realised that complex CI trends towards general compute orchestration. I found it hard to achieve complex, reliable, and fast pipelines with GitLab CI. There have been outages, but we didn't find this to be any worse than CircleCI, and was better than our experience running a Jenkins cluster.