3 ms·

I worked at companies using Gitlab for a decade, and got familiar with runners. Recently switched to a company using Github, and assumed I'd be blown away by t

I worked at companies using Gitlab for a decade, and got familiar with runners. Recently switched to a company using Github, and assumed I'd be blown away by their offering because of their size. Well, I was, but not in the way I'd hoped. They're absolutely awful in comparison, and I'm beyond confused how it got to that state. If I were running a company and had to choose between the two, I'd pick Gitlab every time just because of Github actions.

yoyohello13 2y ago
Glad I’m not the only one. GitLab runners just make sense to me. A container you run scripts in. I have some GitHub actions for some side projects and it just seems so much more confusing to setup for some reason.
- usr1106 2y ago
  So Github was really the perfect acquisation for the Microsoft portfolio. Applications with a big market share that are technically inferior to the competition. // Luckily still a gitlab user, but recently forced to Microsoft Teams and office.
  - rhubarbtree 2y ago
    Technical superiority is so irrelevant compared to distribution. Welcome to capitalism, where the market rewards marketing.
  - out-of-ideas 2y ago
    > recently forced to Microsoft Teams my condolences to you and your team for that switch; it's my 2nd used-and-disliked thing (right next to atlassian) - oh well but one cool feature i found with ms teams that zoom did not have (some years ago - no clue now) is turning off incoming video so you dont have to be constantly distracted in meetings edit: oh yeah, re github actions and the user that said: > Glad I’m not the only one me too, me too; gh actions seem frustrating (from a user hardly using gh actions, and more gitlab things - even though gitlab seems pretty wonky at times, too)
    - jcattle 2y ago
      I prefer teams just for the fact that by default everyone can mute everyone else in the call. It just gives me peace of mind that if I ever leave my mic on by mistake, someone in the call would have my back and just mute me.
      - folmar 2y ago
        Pretty much any major teleconference software does that for a few years already.
- briansmith 2y ago
  Actions have special integration with GitHub (e.g. they can annotate the pull request review UI) using an API. If you forgo that integration, then you can absolutely use GitHub Actions like "a container you run scripts in." This is the advice that is usually given in every thread about GitHub Actions.
  - byroot 2y ago
    That helps a bit but doesn't solve everything. If you want to make a CI performant, you'll need to use some of its features like caches, parallel workers, etc. And GHA usability really fall short there. The only reason I put up with it is that it's free for open source projects and integrated in GitHub, so it took over Travis-ci a few years ago.
  - mubou 2y ago
    Devil's advocate: They could make the github CLI capable of doing all of those things (if it's not already), and then the only thing the container needs is a token.
    - pinkgolem 2y ago
      There are multiple ways you can do this already from within a script
      - baq 2y ago
        Ah, the Dropbox comment. > For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.
        voganmother42 2y ago
        Ive had good luck using: https://github.com/actions/github-script https://github.com/actions/github-script When the cli didnt have support for what I needed
- HdS84 2y ago
  There are lots of problems. Actions try to abstract the script away and give you a consistent experience and, must crucially, allow sharing. Because gitlab has no real way to share actions or workflows (I can do yaml include, but come on that sucks even harder than actions) you are constantly reinventing the wheel. That's ok if all you do is " build folder" but if you need caching, reporting of issues, code coverage etc. Pp it gets real ugly really fast. Example: yesterday I tried services, i.e. starting up some DB and backend containers to run integration tests against. Unfortunately, you cannot expand dynamic variables (set by previous containers) but are limited to already set bars. So back to docker compose...and the gitlab pipelines are chock full of such weird limitations
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - raffraffraff 2y ago
    I haven't looked too much into how sharing workflows works, but isn't the use of shared GitHub workflows (from outside your org) a little dangerous? I get it, we use other people's code all the time. Some we trust more (ISO of a Linux OS with SHA) and others we trust a little less even if it comes from a verified source with GPG, because we know that supply chain attacks can happen. Every time someone introduced a new way to use someone else's shared magic I feel nervous about using it. Like GitHub Actions. Perhaps it's time for me to dig into them a bit more and try to understand if/how they're safe to use. But I seem to remember just a few days ago someone mentioning a GitHub action getting hijacked?
    - vel0city 2y ago
      Definitely a mixed bag. Lots of community derived actions which yes, potentially have some bad supply chain questions. I tend to try and avoid these as much as possible. Lots of established vendors also have their own actions shared though, so you don't have to reinvent the wheel when interacting with their platforms/services/products. For instance, AWS has a lot of actions they maintain to assist with common CI/CD needs with AWS services. https://github.com/aws-actions https://github.com/aws-actions
- globular-toast 2y ago
  Same. I'd been using Gitlab for a few years when Actions came out. Looked at it and thought, wow that's weird, but gave it the benefit of the doubt as it's just different, surely it would make sense eventually. Well no, it doesn't make sense, and seeing all the shocked Pikachu at the action compromise the other day was amusing.
- OJFord 2y ago
  > I have some GitHub actions for some side projects and it just seems so much more confusing to setup for some reason. Because the docs are crap perhaps? I prefer it, having used both professionally (and Jenkins, Circle, Travis), but I do think the docs are really bad. Even just the nesting of pages once you have them open, where is the bit with the actual bloody syntax reference, functions, context, etc.
zamalek 2y ago
> I'm beyond confused how it got to that state. A few years back I wanted to throw in the towel and write a more minimal GHA-compatible agent. I couldn't even find where in the code they were calling out to GitHub APIs (one goal was to have that first party progress UI experience). I don't know where I heard this, so big hearsay warning, but apparently nobody at GitHub can figure it out either.

yoyohello13 2y ago

Glad I’m not the only one. GitLab runners just make sense to me. A container you run scripts in. I have some GitHub actions for some side projects and it just seems so much more confusing to setup for some reason.

usr1106 2y ago
So Github was really the perfect acquisation for the Microsoft portfolio. Applications with a big market share that are technically inferior to the competition. // Luckily still a gitlab user, but recently forced to Microsoft Teams and office.
- rhubarbtree 2y ago
  Technical superiority is so irrelevant compared to distribution. Welcome to capitalism, where the market rewards marketing.
- out-of-ideas 2y ago
  > recently forced to Microsoft Teams my condolences to you and your team for that switch; it's my 2nd used-and-disliked thing (right next to atlassian) - oh well but one cool feature i found with ms teams that zoom did not have (some years ago - no clue now) is turning off incoming video so you dont have to be constantly distracted in meetings edit: oh yeah, re github actions and the user that said: > Glad I’m not the only one me too, me too; gh actions seem frustrating (from a user hardly using gh actions, and more gitlab things - even though gitlab seems pretty wonky at times, too)
  - jcattle 2y ago
    I prefer teams just for the fact that by default everyone can mute everyone else in the call. It just gives me peace of mind that if I ever leave my mic on by mistake, someone in the call would have my back and just mute me.
    - folmar 2y ago
      Pretty much any major teleconference software does that for a few years already.
briansmith 2y ago
Actions have special integration with GitHub (e.g. they can annotate the pull request review UI) using an API. If you forgo that integration, then you can absolutely use GitHub Actions like "a container you run scripts in." This is the advice that is usually given in every thread about GitHub Actions.
- byroot 2y ago
  That helps a bit but doesn't solve everything. If you want to make a CI performant, you'll need to use some of its features like caches, parallel workers, etc. And GHA usability really fall short there. The only reason I put up with it is that it's free for open source projects and integrated in GitHub, so it took over Travis-ci a few years ago.
- mubou 2y ago
  Devil's advocate: They could make the github CLI capable of doing all of those things (if it's not already), and then the only thing the container needs is a token.
  - pinkgolem 2y ago
    There are multiple ways you can do this already from within a script
    - baq 2y ago
      Ah, the Dropbox comment. > For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.
      - voganmother42 2y ago
        Ive had good luck using: https://github.com/actions/github-script https://github.com/actions/github-script When the cli didnt have support for what I needed
HdS84 2y ago
There are lots of problems. Actions try to abstract the script away and give you a consistent experience and, must crucially, allow sharing. Because gitlab has no real way to share actions or workflows (I can do yaml include, but come on that sucks even harder than actions) you are constantly reinventing the wheel. That's ok if all you do is " build folder" but if you need caching, reporting of issues, code coverage etc. Pp it gets real ugly really fast. Example: yesterday I tried services, i.e. starting up some DB and backend containers to run integration tests against. Unfortunately, you cannot expand dynamic variables (set by previous containers) but are limited to already set bars. So back to docker compose...and the gitlab pipelines are chock full of such weird limitations
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- raffraffraff 2y ago
  I haven't looked too much into how sharing workflows works, but isn't the use of shared GitHub workflows (from outside your org) a little dangerous? I get it, we use other people's code all the time. Some we trust more (ISO of a Linux OS with SHA) and others we trust a little less even if it comes from a verified source with GPG, because we know that supply chain attacks can happen. Every time someone introduced a new way to use someone else's shared magic I feel nervous about using it. Like GitHub Actions. Perhaps it's time for me to dig into them a bit more and try to understand if/how they're safe to use. But I seem to remember just a few days ago someone mentioning a GitHub action getting hijacked?
  - vel0city 2y ago
    Definitely a mixed bag. Lots of community derived actions which yes, potentially have some bad supply chain questions. I tend to try and avoid these as much as possible. Lots of established vendors also have their own actions shared though, so you don't have to reinvent the wheel when interacting with their platforms/services/products. For instance, AWS has a lot of actions they maintain to assist with common CI/CD needs with AWS services. https://github.com/aws-actions https://github.com/aws-actions
globular-toast 2y ago
Same. I'd been using Gitlab for a few years when Actions came out. Looked at it and thought, wow that's weird, but gave it the benefit of the doubt as it's just different, surely it would make sense eventually. Well no, it doesn't make sense, and seeing all the shocked Pikachu at the action compromise the other day was amusing.
OJFord 2y ago
> I have some GitHub actions for some side projects and it just seems so much more confusing to setup for some reason. Because the docs are crap perhaps? I prefer it, having used both professionally (and Jenkins, Circle, Travis), but I do think the docs are really bad. Even just the nesting of pages once you have them open, where is the bit with the actual bloody syntax reference, functions, context, etc.

zamalek 2y ago

> I'm beyond confused how it got to that state. A few years back I wanted to throw in the towel and write a more minimal GHA-compatible agent. I couldn't even find where in the code they were calling out to GitHub APIs (one goal was to have that first party progress UI experience). I don't know where I heard this, so big hearsay warning, but apparently nobody at GitHub can figure it out either.