4 ms·

I think gitops is the culprit. Around 2017-2018, everything was git centric and that was the best practice. With some sane process, you can definitely bring dow

I think gitops is the culprit. Around 2017-2018, everything was git centric and that was the best practice. With some sane process, you can definitely bring down that price ridiculously. I have seen in lot of organisations, every push triggers a build. That is wasted compute.

pjc50 2y ago
Every push should trigger a build. This should not cost a significant amount of real money, especially not compared to the salary of the developer waiting for the build.
- mindwok 2y ago
  Why should every push trigger a build?
  - ffsm8 2y ago
    Because why not? There is no reason to filter/abstain from builds given the second statement. Especially if it has the potential to save time for the developer, whose time is going to cost significant more then the build ever will
    - arp242 2y ago
      Because they're spending up to $200,000 every month on it. That's why not. I don't think I've ever seen the "developer time is worth more!" true-ism being uncritically repeated than here. They can easily hire over 12 full-time devs for this money.
      - ffsm8 2y ago
        given the second statement. You're still ignoring it. They've got an issue in their CI, it's not that they're triggering it to often. It's because each build costs way too much. Though we technically don't know that either, as the attendee didn't specify how many builds they did, technically. (At least I didn't see it in TFA) It was also explicitly stated that the goal was to have the Dev run the build locally and sign the commit with the build status so they could skip CI on the server and save cost there. Considering that context, I believe that the Dev time = money argument is justified.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]