7 ms·
The git commit, push, wait loop is terrible UX. Users deserve portable pipelines that run anywhere, including their local machines. I understand Act [1] goes so
by tao_at_garden 3y ago
The git commit, push, wait loop is terrible UX. Users deserve portable pipelines that run anywhere, including their local machines. I understand Act [1] goes some way to solving this headache but it's by and large not a true representation.
There are many pipelines you can't run locally, because they're production, for example, but there's no reason why we can't capture these workflows to run them locally at less-critical stages of development. Garden offers portable pipelines and then adds caching across your entire web of dependencies. Some of our customers see 80% or higher reductions in run times plus devs get that immediate feedback on what tests are failing or passing without pushing to git first using our Garden Workflows.
We're OSS. [2]
[1] https://github.com/nektos/act https://github.com/nektos/act
[2] https://docs.garden.io https://docs.garden.io
- baggachipz 3y agoAct's incompleteness has had me barking up the wrong tree many times. At this point I've temporarily abandoned using it in favor of the old cycle. I'm hoping it gets better in time!
- frodowtf 3y agoI don't get why GitHub doesn't adopt it and make it a standard. Especially the lack of caches is annoying.
- andrewstuart2 3y agoYeah, it seems like we lost a lot of the "CI shouldn't be a snowflake" when we started creating teams that specialize in "DevOps" and "DevOps tools." Once something becomes a career, I think you've hit the turning point of "this thing is going to become too complicated." I see the same thing with capital-A Agile and all the career scrum masters needing something to do with their time.
- candiddevmike 3y agoIf folks just had actions target make or bash scripts instead of turning actions into bash scripts none of this would be an issue. Your CI/CD and your devs should all use the same targets/commands like `make release`.
- taeric 3y agoI'm actually confused and scared on how often this isn't the case? What are people doing in their actions that isn't easily doable locally?
- ghayes 3y agoA huge portion of my actions are for things like caching or publishing artifacts, which are unique to actions itself.
- taeric 3y agoI'd assume you would be able to publish and deploy locally before setting up actions. Such that those are likely targets in your build system? Caching, I can mostly understand as unique there. Though, I think I'm living with whatever the default stuff in actions is. Slow for builds that don't happen often, of course, but not so slow that I care.
- Tainnor 3y agoUnfortunately, my team has some builds that take ~25 min without caching and maybe 2 min with caching. I'm still not entirely sure why it's the case, but the connection to the package registry is incredibly slow, so downloading all dependencies takes forever.
- taeric 3y agoI'm fortunate that worrying about 25 minute builds just doesn't matter. The long pole on all builds is still the code review that goes with it, such that I just don't care about getting that time too low here. That is, I am assuming that a CI build is not on the immediate dev loop, such that the person pushing it doesn't have to wait for the build before they prepare a review on it.
- duped 3y agoWhy should caching in the cloud be any different than caching locally?
- sakopov 3y agoWe need Terraform for build pipelines and God help you if you use Bitbucket lol
- jherdman 3y agoFYI garden.io’s landing page appears to be broken on iOS. It runs off the page to the right.
- edvald 3y agoThanks for flagging! We'll fix that.