3 ms·
It's insane to me that being able to run CI steps locally is not the first priority of every CI system. It ought to be a basic requirement.
by modeless 9mo ago
It's insane to me that being able to run CI steps locally is not the first priority of every CI system. It ought to be a basic requirement.
- duped 9mo agoThis goes against every incentive for the CI service provider
- anon7000 9mo agoNot necessarily. For example, Buildkite lets you host your own runners.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- mrinterweb 9mo agoI've often thought about this. There are times I would rather have CI run locally, and use my PGP signature to add a git note to the commit. Something like: ``` echo "CI passed" | gpg2 --clearsign --output=- | git notes add -F- ``` Then CI could check git notes and check the dev signature, and skip the workflow/pipeline if correctly signed. With more local CI, the incentive may shift to buying devs fancier machines instead of spending that money on cloud CI. I bet most devs have extra cores to spare and would not mind having a beefier dev machine.
- teaearlgraycold 9mo ago"Works on my machine!"
- akoboldfrying 9mo agoI think this is a sound approach, but I do see one legitimate reason to keep using a third-party CI service: reducing the chance of a software supply chain attack by building in a hardened environment that has (presumably) had attention from security people. I'd say the importance of this is increasing.
- smw 9mo agohttps://github.com/nektos/act https://github.com/nektos/act