3 ms·

This seems nonsensical. Why would non-actions activity consume actions budget?

throwatdem12311 5mo ago
“F*ck you. Pay me.” That’s why.
freedomben 5mo ago
Agreed, especially weird since they just rolled out usage-based billing for Co-pilot. It would make a lot more sense to just re-use that usage instead IMHO
- semiquaver 5mo ago
  It does, read the article. This feature now consumes actions credits and AI credits.
  - freedomben 5mo ago
    Yeah my mistake, I wasn't very clear in my comment. Though actually the more I think about it, I think this change actually does make more sense. In the case of the AI running on GitHub side, that does feel pretty equivalent to CI minutes. I would hope that the number of minutes they bill for is pretty minimal though, since the vast majority of that will be I/O waiting on the agent to return
whalesalad 5mo ago
Code review ostensibly takes place inside a container runtime just like tests or other actions would. It makes sense to me.
- PunchyHamster 5mo ago
  but consumes vastly more resources than most app's build process. Done that way it obfuscates cost of the code review and I think that's on purpose
  - whalesalad 5mo ago
    The cost of running a container (to github) is someone else not being able to run a container.
horsawlarway 5mo ago
My guess is that they're moving to a spot where they can pitch an LLM "doing something" as an action, and copilot is their first move. I don't see it as crazy to think of a "copilot code review" in a similar way to other build actions. But also - enterprise accounts already have budget assigned to github actions, and this allows them to start billing right away without having to actually get (or allow) businesses to evaluate the return of having copilot do code reviews. So seems like it's a mix of immediate incentives and long term architecture. I don't like it, though. If I were an enterprise my first response would be to turn it off.
- swiftcoder 5mo ago
  > enterprise accounts already have budget assigned to github actions, and this allows them to start billing right away without having to actually get (or allow) businesses to evaluate the return of having copilot do code reviews Hang on, I read this as copilot reviews with bill both actions minutes and AI credits. Did I miss something?
  - zdragnar 5mo ago
    I'm assuming the running of the model is consuming the tokens, and the client coordinating and orchestrating the calls to the model to perform the review is happening in an action runner, thus using action minutes.
semiquaver 5mo ago
> Last month, we shared how GitHub Copilot code review runs on […] GitHub Actions using GitHub-hosted runners. They say that they’re now billing against their actual costs
tommy29tmar 5mo ago
[dead]
WorldMaker 5mo ago
Copilot Code Reviews are Actions workflows. Just privileged ones you can't edit the YAML for. They even litter your Actions tab list and Deployment environments.

“F*ck you. Pay me.” That’s why.

Agreed, especially weird since they just rolled out usage-based billing for Co-pilot. It would make a lot more sense to just re-use that usage instead IMHO

semiquaver 5mo ago
It does, read the article. This feature now consumes actions credits and AI credits.
- freedomben 5mo ago
  Yeah my mistake, I wasn't very clear in my comment. Though actually the more I think about it, I think this change actually does make more sense. In the case of the AI running on GitHub side, that does feel pretty equivalent to CI minutes. I would hope that the number of minutes they bill for is pretty minimal though, since the vast majority of that will be I/O waiting on the agent to return

whalesalad 5mo ago

Code review ostensibly takes place inside a container runtime just like tests or other actions would. It makes sense to me.

PunchyHamster 5mo ago
but consumes vastly more resources than most app's build process. Done that way it obfuscates cost of the code review and I think that's on purpose
- whalesalad 5mo ago
  The cost of running a container (to github) is someone else not being able to run a container.

horsawlarway 5mo ago

My guess is that they're moving to a spot where they can pitch an LLM "doing something" as an action, and copilot is their first move. I don't see it as crazy to think of a "copilot code review" in a similar way to other build actions. But also - enterprise accounts already have budget assigned to github actions, and this allows them to start billing right away without having to actually get (or allow) businesses to evaluate the return of having copilot do code reviews. So seems like it's a mix of immediate incentives and long term architecture. I don't like it, though. If I were an enterprise my first response would be to turn it off.

swiftcoder 5mo ago
> enterprise accounts already have budget assigned to github actions, and this allows them to start billing right away without having to actually get (or allow) businesses to evaluate the return of having copilot do code reviews Hang on, I read this as copilot reviews with bill both actions minutes and AI credits. Did I miss something?
- zdragnar 5mo ago
  I'm assuming the running of the model is consuming the tokens, and the client coordinating and orchestrating the calls to the model to perform the review is happening in an action runner, thus using action minutes.

semiquaver 5mo ago

> Last month, we shared how GitHub Copilot code review runs on […] GitHub Actions using GitHub-hosted runners. They say that they’re now billing against their actual costs

tommy29tmar 5mo ago

[dead]

WorldMaker 5mo ago

Copilot Code Reviews are Actions workflows. Just privileged ones you can't edit the YAML for. They even litter your Actions tab list and Deployment environments.