3 ms·
Yeah, if you want anything you need to build it yourself and raise merge requests and hope they merge it to make it into Gitlab.com. Even their Gitlab.com runn
by wdb 4y ago
Yeah, if you want anything you need to build it yourself and raise merge requests and hope they merge it to make it into Gitlab.com.
Even their Gitlab.com runners are still not on par with the Github. You pay $99/month/user and can't even get the same base runner spec as Github instead of you need to pay double the CI minutes to get it. Pretty mad
- dijit 4y agoTo be fair here it’s a bit apples to oranges. Gitlab is optimised more towards running your own runners, it’s natively supported and extremely easy to set them up. GitHub on the other hand provides you CI which has the possibility to self-host, but they’re sort of awkward to use due to the fact they force you to use odd tags and you don’t get all the features.
- wdb 4y agoDoesn't mean they could have the same level of runner spec as Github. Especially, when you pay a lot of money for Gitlab. Github std spec is ~7gb + 2vcpu while on Gitlab you need to pay double minutes to get that. They could at least match that for their paid plans. Personally, I think, Gitlab keeps adding a lot of features but the core CI related functionality seem to get less attention these days.