6 ms·
I tried to use GitHub Actions on Forgejo and... It's so much worse than using an actual CI pipeline. With Woodpecker/Jenkins you know exactly what your pipelin
by xinayder 2y ago
I tried to use GitHub Actions on Forgejo and... It's so much worse than using an actual CI pipeline.
With Woodpecker/Jenkins you know exactly what your pipeline is doing. With GitHub actions, not even the developers of the actions themselves know what the runner does.
- lolinder 2y ago> use GitHub Actions on Forgejo What does this even mean? Are you talking about Forgejo Actions, or are you somehow hosting your code on a Forgejo instance but running CI through GitHub? > With Woodpecker/Jenkins you know exactly what your pipeline is doing. If you wrote it from the ground up, sure. On the other hand, I've inherited Jenkins pipelines that were written years before I got there and involved three to four different plugins, and they're way worse to work with than the GitHub Actions that I inherited.
- xinayder 2y ago> What does this even mean? Are you talking about Forgejo Actions, or are you somehow hosting your code on a Forgejo instance but running CI through GitHub? yes, Forgejo Actions which is supposed to be a drop in replacement for GH Actions. You can say they're different things but the general idea and level of complexity is the same.
- myaccountonhn 2y agoBest one I've used is the CI of sourcehut. So simple and so damn easy to set up.
- gabeio 2y agoYou basically achieve the same result on github actions if you just ignore all of the github action yaml “magic” settings in the syntax and let your makefile/script do the logic which also makes it trivial to debug locally. But upvote because I do love sourcehut, it’s just so clean!
- myaccountonhn 2y agoYes, but with Sourcehut you can also SSH into the machine, making it trivial to debug.