3 ms·
> it's simply no longer reasonable to BYO CI Why? I know plenty of teams which are fine with repo and CI being separate tools as long as there is integration
by prmoustache 7mo ago
> it's simply no longer reasonable to BYO CI
Why? I know plenty of teams which are fine with repo and CI being separate tools as long as there is integration between the 2.
- CuriouslyC 7mo agoActions are bad, but they're free (to start) and just good enough that they're useful to set up something quick and dirty, and tempt you to try and scale it for a little while.
- knocte 7mo agoExactly. Any github alternative needs to consume same GithubActions syntax OOTB I'm afraid.
- rmunn 7mo agoWhich, as far as I found so far, means Forgejo. Haven't found any others. And even Forgejo Actions says that it's mostly the same as Github Actions syntax, meaning you still have to double-check that everything still works the same. It probably will, but if you don't know what the corner cases are then you have to double-check everything. Still, it's probably the best migration option if you rely on GHA.
- suslik 7mo agoGitea also, I think.
- woodruffw 7mo agoEmphasis on teams; the median open source project has a fraction of a single person working on it.