2 ms·
They're "great"? Really? Imo the only sane thing is to write CI/CD pipelines in a scripting language like sh. That way it is portable and doesn't depend on one
by sureglymop 4y ago
They're "great"? Really? Imo the only sane thing is to write CI/CD pipelines in a scripting language like sh. That way it is portable and doesn't depend on one platform.
Gitlab CI supports "include" but not for scripts, just for templates. It's hard to have a centralised repository of scripts and include ones to use in a pipeline. I just don't understand why CI/CD couldn't just be in sh...
- nickstinemates 4y agoIt's funny I started my career building exactly what you suggest. Even in shell. Before adopting Hudson (now Jenkins) and the like. Bespoke CI/CD solutions are great, especially if you're the author and tailor it to the business, for a certain size and class of use case. As a business though, it's hardly ever worth the investment/maintenance and ongoing operational cost vs. just externalizing it and dealing with the consequences unless it is your business or a fundamental part of how your business is delivered. Thus, generic (but extensible) solutions are the happy medium.
- sureglymop 4y agoI am proficient in sh/bash. I just think it's a little ridiculous since the actual main logic of something like gitlab ci is still lines of shell code... I don't have an issue learning the actual syntax/logic myself but it just feels wrong.
- mappu 4y agoYou may be interested in Laminar CI.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]