I unironically said GitHub Actions was the worse thing they made when it came to CI/CD. I tried setting up a local runner for Forgejo Actions (compatible with G

I unironically said GitHub Actions was the worse thing they made when it came to CI/CD. I tried setting up a local runner for Forgejo Actions (compatible with GHA) on my k8s cluster and it was a pain to properly set it up, 1) because Forgejo/Gitea Actions is in beta and k8s support is experimental and 2) because GHA has a very dumb syntax. The thing others mentioned: you just add an external action and you have absolutely no idea what it's doing and you barely have useful output from it. I'd rather continue using CI like Woodpecker or any other one because at least you can understand what's going on behind the scenes, but GHA is inherently bad. EDIT: author makes a point about confusing terminology from GHA: > I think some disambiguation is in order: The whole thing is advertised as "GitHub Actions", however doing something is defined in a "workflow", and workflows can be packaged, parameterized, and reused in other workflows, and this is then called an "action" again. I noticed this when I was setting up my local runner. What is an action, is Action the CI program itself or the job or a stage of the pipeline? What is the workflow, is it a job or a stage? Now I'm more convinced that this is just something stupid made by Microsoft, instead of relying on existing infra they wanted to create something "entirely new" just to force people to use GitHub. Traditional big corpo fuck you right there.