3 ms·
Every great journey must have an end. As far as I understand Cirrus CI was struggling due to Github Actions eating their market. Cirrus CI was in my opinion muc
by jeltz 6mo ago
Every great journey must have an end. As far as I understand Cirrus CI was struggling due to Github Actions eating their market. Cirrus CI was in my opinion much better than Github Actions but it is hard to compete with a bundled solution.
- esafak 6mo agoWhat was good about it? It looks pretty ordinary to me: https://cirrus-ci.org/features/ https://cirrus-ci.org/features/
- jeltz 6mo agoMuch better UX for viewing logs, more supported platforms. Github Actions in particular is also very unstable.
- a1o 6mo agoIt gives a better docker based experience and it also has measurements of memory and cpu usage to help you dimension things quickly.
- anarazel 6mo agoAbility to trivially use custom VM images was quite nice. The amount of CI time spent installing dependencies or copying a cache of installed stuff is nontrivial. Particularly for Windows the time difference is often very substantial. But even for plain Linux, there's no point in apt-get update && apt-get install the same set of things in every run (when using containers, cirrus could build them in-demand too, with little notational overhead). Defaulting to throw-away-VMs for everything is also the right choice for something where the threat model includes attackers submitting patches/PRs. I'll never understand why folks were ok with just container separation for that (and often have no separation in runners).