3 ms·

It does not seem unreasonable that if the locally-run actions are using some GitHub resources (for logging, maintenance,etc) then there's a cost to that. What

It does not seem unreasonable that if the locally-run actions are using some GitHub resources (for logging, maintenance,etc) then there's a cost to that. What a reasonable charge is, is open to discussion.

estimator7292 10mo ago
It sure as hell isn't a per-minute cost
- jborean93 10mo ago
  per-minute is really just a way to express the cost in a human friendly name. Doing per-hour, per-second, per-day could all result in the same total value just at a different number. If anything per-minute is better than per-hour as you won't be charge for minutes you don't use.
  - whateveracct 10mo ago
    the issue is it's per-$DURATION it could be per-workflow, regardless of duration
  - tom1337 10mo ago
    But why not make it "per GB Logs ingested" or "per triggered job" (or both)? These should reflect the points where GitHub also has costs - but not per minute.
- chippiewill 10mo ago
  per-minute isn't a crazy unreasonable proxy for it though: - logs are generally proportional to the length of the job - other artifacts also usually correlate to an extent - some of the cost for Github will be for the entire time the job is active: e.g. active connections for log streaming etc. - it's largely correlated to the value the end-user gets out of it - it's easy to bill for because they can already do billing that way on the hosted runners - the costs are easy to predict for end-users It's not like the rest of the Github platform is a per-user cost to run, but that's how Github charge for most features.
carefulfungi 10mo ago
Classic SaaS platform problem. If you give it away, it will cost you money - and eventually someone will "arbitrage" it at sufficient scale to matter. If you charge for it, your billing becomes a nightmare collection of counters and rates, impossible for users to estimate and understand.
0x073 10mo ago
Then why we pay a fix price for everything, size of repositories, webhooks etc, except the self hosted actions.

estimator7292 10mo ago

It sure as hell isn't a per-minute cost

jborean93 10mo ago
per-minute is really just a way to express the cost in a human friendly name. Doing per-hour, per-second, per-day could all result in the same total value just at a different number. If anything per-minute is better than per-hour as you won't be charge for minutes you don't use.
- whateveracct 10mo ago
  the issue is it's per-$DURATION it could be per-workflow, regardless of duration
- tom1337 10mo ago
  But why not make it "per GB Logs ingested" or "per triggered job" (or both)? These should reflect the points where GitHub also has costs - but not per minute.
chippiewill 10mo ago
per-minute isn't a crazy unreasonable proxy for it though: - logs are generally proportional to the length of the job - other artifacts also usually correlate to an extent - some of the cost for Github will be for the entire time the job is active: e.g. active connections for log streaming etc. - it's largely correlated to the value the end-user gets out of it - it's easy to bill for because they can already do billing that way on the hosted runners - the costs are easy to predict for end-users It's not like the rest of the Github platform is a per-user cost to run, but that's how Github charge for most features.

carefulfungi 10mo ago

Classic SaaS platform problem. If you give it away, it will cost you money - and eventually someone will "arbitrage" it at sufficient scale to matter. If you charge for it, your billing becomes a nightmare collection of counters and rates, impossible for users to estimate and understand.

0x073 10mo ago

Then why we pay a fix price for everything, size of repositories, webhooks etc, except the self hosted actions.