3 ms·
Posts like this make me miss Travis. Travis CI was incredible, especially for testing CI locally. (I agree with the author that act is a well done hack. I've st
by nunez 2y ago
Posts like this make me miss Travis. Travis CI was incredible, especially for testing CI locally. (I agree with the author that act is a well done hack. I've stopped using it because of how often I'd have something pass in act and fail in GHA.)
> GitHub doesn't care
My take: GitHub only built Actions to compete against GitLab CI, as built-in CI was taking large chunks of market share from them in the enterprise.
- sureIy 2y agoTo be fair, GitHub also charges for Actions minutes and storage, so it's one of the few pieces that do generate revenue.
- chubot 2y agoHow so? I don’t recall this, and I used Travis, and then migrated to GitHub actions. As far as I can tell, they are identical as far as testing locally. If you want to test locally, then put as much logic in shell scripts as possible, decoupled from the CI.
- homebrewer 2y agoWoodpecker supports running jobs on your own machine (and conveniently provides a command to do that for failed jobs), uses the same sane approach of passing your snippets to the shell directly (without using weird typescript wrappers), and is pluggable into all major forges, GitHub included.