Introduction
Introduction Statistics Contact Development Disclaimer Help
_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
GitHub will begin charging for self-hosted action runners on March 2026
hk1337 wrote 25 min ago:
AWS code (build|deploy) supports GitHub actions workflow, gitlab does,
gitea (codeberg, forgejo) too
The biggest issue is the compatibility, forgejo doesn’t have all the
actions available that GitHub does nor some of the same functionality
almosthere wrote 54 min ago:
Well sounds like $40 per month more for us. Looked at CircleCI pricing,
and mostly because of HOW they charge, it would be $3000, so Github it
is.
aaronds wrote 50 min ago:
Is that because you have loads of users? (curious CircleCI employee
here)
almosthere wrote 32 min ago:
Your pricing page seems to have changed intra-day. but now it's
about $400ish.
30 users + 500 builds.
However I don't know what counts as a build, since a typical commit
to an open PR uses 10 GH runner machines simultaneously doing odd
jobs like integration tests, releases, deploys, etc...
aaronds wrote 23 min ago:
Can you send a link to the page you’re looking at? Thanks!
Pricing should mostly just be users + build minutes (for cloud
runners) + storage. There is a few other optional, feature
specific costs. Self hosted runners are free, but you need to
self host caches/workspaces - our native ones have an egress bill
to self hosted runners.
almosthere wrote 21 min ago:
[1] If self-hosted runners are free that would change our
equation a bit. I'll talk to some folks here, I liked using
this product at another company I worked at - but this would
most likely shake out AFTER Github charges us the first time.
[1]: https://circleci.com/pricing/build-your-plan/
lrvick wrote 54 min ago:
I would remind everyone that lots of free solutions like Forgejo exist
with much better security posture.
Sytten wrote 58 min ago:
Maybe with this "investment" will get an actual solution for Github
Actions sh*t version management of actions[1] after just closing the
Immutable Actions issue with a "sucks to be you" comment[2]. AI-Native
Github action Agentic package management for Copilot /s [1]
[1]: https://nesbitt.io/2025/12/06/github-actions-package-manager.h...
[2]: https://github.com/github/roadmap/issues/592
ozim wrote 1 hour 17 min ago:
I guess Jenkins gets back in the game.
umvi wrote 1 hour 31 min ago:
Atlassian recently did this with BitBucket self hosted runners. Is
there a CI/CD cartel or something?
ed_blackburn wrote 1 hour 42 min ago:
Microsoft are really sweating GitHub now aren't they? It wouldn't be so
bad if it improving but there is certainly a perception that it is
costing more for a poorer product, irrespective of the new features
they're layering on.
more_corn wrote 1 hour 50 min ago:
Gitlab here I come
davidpaulyoung wrote 1 hour 51 min ago:
Why not just self-host Gitea? CI/CD, runners, all included. Freedom.
Don't have the time do keep it going and safe? No worries, folks like
[1] do that.
[1]: https://federated.computer
janc_ wrote 1 hour 4 min ago:
Forgejo might be a better option for that now.
Someone1234 wrote 1 hour 55 min ago:
I really enjoy how they list the price PER MINUTE to make it sound like
this isn't absurdly expensive. A lot of people leave their self-hosted
runners running 24/7 because, after all, they're self-hosted.
This is $2.88/day, $86.4/month, $1051.2/year. For them to do
essentially nothing.
Most notably, this is the same price as their hosted "Linux 1-core" on
a per-minute basis. Meaning they're charging you the same for running
it yourself, as you'd pay for them to host it for you...
hoppp wrote 30 min ago:
How can they charge for something self hosted per minute? Thats very
weird to me. If I run the software I should pay a single time only,
if I don't own it then why self-host im the first place?
Maybe this is designed to scare people away from self-hosting
altogether?
Someone1234 wrote 2 min ago:
I do believe, this is to disincentivize self-hosting for
smaller-medium workloads. In essence, they're saying that if you're
small, you should just use their Linux 1-Core, but if you're
medium-to-large you won't care about the high cost.
It is a way of increasing lock-in for smaller-medium clients,
without driving away their medium-large ones.
PunchyHamster wrote 50 min ago:
You can get far bigger VM for that per month. It's ridiculus.
Of course entirely expected after MS buyout, if anything I'm
surprised it took that long
lta wrote 19 min ago:
Yup. Took wayyy longer than I actually expected as well. But the
change of top management and closer integration with the whole MS
behemoth is likely to make those kind of things accelerate now
liamkinne wrote 59 min ago:
$1k per year if you run an action 24/7. How many minutes per month do
you actually use? How does that compare to the cost of the machines
being used as runners?
The real mistake was GH not charging anything for self-hosted runners
in the first place, setting an expectation.
danpalmer wrote 1 hour 36 min ago:
> For them to do essentially nothing.
Orchestration, logging, caching, result storage.
It's not nothing. Whether it's worth it to you is a value judgement,
and having run a bunch of different CI systems I'd say this is still
at least competitive.
PunchyHamster wrote 53 min ago:
They are charging for storage separately already! Why are you lying
?
echoangle wrote 37 min ago:
Lying implies intent, I don't think the person you're replying to
is necessarily lying, even though they might be wrong on this
specific point.
soothaa wrote 1 hour 51 min ago:
Wait.. is this how they're billing it?? Not the duration of runs??
Factor1177 wrote 1 hour 44 min ago:
It is duration of runs. He was just highlighting the absurde cost
if you were to run it 24/7 like some people with their own self
hosted runners do.
dijit wrote 1 hour 35 min ago:
I am not understanding something.
If its the price of runs, then its not always running.
If its price of the agent to exist, then thats not paying per
runs- then you’re right that people tend to leave their runners
online 24/7- but I’ve never worked anywhere that had workers
building 24/7.
beAbU wrote 50 min ago:
I guess some people just always have something running since
it's owned hardware. Daily builds of popular OSS projects or
constant vuln scans or whatever?
manquer wrote 1 hour 11 min ago:
OP means to say he has many jobs in the merge queue that the
runners are always busy 24/7.
This is not uncommon in some orgs - less number of concurrent
runners, slow builds, loads of jobs because of automation or
how hooks for the runners are setup.
In the context of discussion that doesn't matter, OP's point
distills to that they use minimum of 720 hours / month of
orchestration time or some multiple of that on self hosted
runners running 24x7.
Github will now charge $84 extra per month for single
self-hosted runner running 24x7 - i.e. that is the cost for
43,200 build minutes for only their orchestration alone.
In a more typical setup that is equivalent to say 5 self-hosted
running running ~4.5 hours a day(i.e 144/hours/runner/month)
folmar wrote 50 min ago:
If you have a lot of not very time sensitive jobs, e.g. large
merge trains, it was reasonable to have a not very fast
runner run close to full utilization. Now that you'd pay by
the run-minute, it'll be cheaper to move to a faster runner
and run it at 10%.
throwaway150 wrote 2 hours 2 min ago:
It is us, developers, who convinced our management to purchase GitHub
Enterprise to be our forge. We didn't pay any heed to the values of
software freedom. A closed source, proprietary software had good
features. We saw that and convinced our management to purchase it.
Never mind what cost it would impose in the future when the good
software gets bad owners. Never mind that there were alternatives that
were inferior but were community-developed, community-maintained and
libre.
The writing is in the wall. First it was UX annoyances. Then it was
GitHub Actions woes. Now it is paying money for running their software
on your own hardware. It's only going to go downhill. Is it a good time
now to learn from our mistakes and convince our teams and management to
use community-maintained, libre alternatives? They may be inferior.
They may lack features. But they're not going to pull user hostile
tricks like this on you and me. And hey, if they are lacking features,
maybe we should convince our management to let us contribute time to
the community to add those features? It's a much better investment than
sinking money into a software that will only grow more and more user
hostile, isn't it?
skilning wrote 59 min ago:
Have any suggestions to those community-developed and maintained
options?
ukd1 wrote 4 min ago:
Gitea. Gitlab (ish?).
Nextgrid wrote 1 hour 6 min ago:
Takes like these do not account for the value you gained by using the
software in the meantime. Here are 2 scenarios:
1) company uses exclusively free software, spends more time dealing
with the shortcomings of said software than developing product,
product is half baked and doesn't sell well, company dies.
2) company uses proprietary but cheap/free (as in beer) software that
does the job really well, focuses on developing product, product is
good and sells well, company how has a ton of money they could use to
replicate the proprietary product from scratch if they wanted to.
A purist approach like in scenario 1 leaves everyone poor. A
pragmatic approach like scenario 2 ends up earning enough money that
can be used to recreate the proprietary software from scratch (and
open-source it if you wanted to).
In this case the problem isn't even the proprietariness of the
software, it's the fact that companies are reliant on someone else
hosting the software (GH being FOSS wouldn't actually change anything
here - whoever is hosting it can still enforce whatever terms they
want).
FOSS alternatives already exist, it's just that our industry is so
consumed by grifters that nobody knows how to do things anymore
(because it's more profitable for every individual not to); running
software on a server (what used to be table stakes for any shop and
junior sysadmin) is nowadays lost knowledge. Microsoft and SaaS
software providers are capitalizing on this.
bdangubic wrote 55 min ago:
or alternative hire right people that know what they are doing and
don’t need a whole lot of junk to work on and deploy. I have been
coding 31 years now and don’t have the slighest clue why anyone
would ever need a “github action”
embedding-shape wrote 1 hour 1 min ago:
> A purist approach like in scenario 1 leaves everyone poor.
That depends, not always. Sometimes the employees of said company
manages to contribute back upstream, on the dime of the company. If
the "free software" they used and contributed to have a lot of
users, it's certainly not "leaves everyone poor" but rather "helps
everyone, beyond monetary gain".
Sure, you can make the argument that it isn't that great for the
company, and you may be right. But the world is bigger than
companies making money, killing a few companies along the way to
make small iterative steps on making free software for absolutely
everyone is probably a worthwhile sacrifice, if you zoom out a bit.
foobarian wrote 1 hour 52 min ago:
> alternatives that were inferior
Actually there were alternatives that were far superior (seriously,
no way to group projects?) but also more than 2x as expensive. If GH
"fixes the glitch" then it will be plan B time.
nikeee wrote 2 hours 11 min ago:
Given that I can dump hundreds of TBs into the private container
registry without paying anything I'm pretty surprised that they now
charge for what is basically providing log streaming and retention.
QuiCasseRien wrote 2 hours 20 min ago:
More than 6 years users of OneDev (onedev.io).
- Git repo
- Ticketing, Kaban
- Full helpdesk
- Complete and full CI/CD
- everything links via custom workflow
- self hosted
I still dont know why everyone hasn't switch yet to that banger.
jamesu wrote 1 hour 20 min ago:
I really wanted to like it but the UI always put me off. Also tending
to prefer a more open development model these days. Thankfully at
least for dev gitea and forgejo have both come a long way and the CI
is pretty decent now (though they still dont have a gui workflow
builder!).
j45 wrote 2 hours 24 min ago:
This customer will be leaving GitHub action runners for punishing
self-hosting.
GitLab CI and others seem to be perfectly serviceable.
templar_snow wrote 2 hours 29 min ago:
Absolutely ridiculous. Just absolutely abhorrent and downright abusive
move on Microsoft's part.
manquer wrote 57 min ago:
> abhorrent and downright abusive move
Is it that egregious?. I read it as they are redistributing the
costs. It is in combination dropping the managed runner costs by a
good margin and charging for the orchestration infrastructure. The
log storage and real time streaming infra isn't free for them (not
$84/month/runner expensive perhaps but certainly not cheap )
We don't need to use the orchestration layer at all, even if we want
to use rest of the platform, either for orchestration or runners.
Github APIs have robust hooks(not charged extra) and third-party
services(and self-hostable projects) already provide runners, they
will all add the orchestration layer now after this news.
--
Competition is good, free[2] kills competition. Microsoft is the
master of doing that with Internet Explorer or Teams today.
Nobody was looking at doing the orchestration layer because Github
Actions was good enough at free[1], now the likes of BuildJet,
Namespace Labs etc are going to be.
[1] Scheduler issues in Github Actions not withstanding, it was hard
to compete against a free product that costs money to build and run.
[2] i.e. bundled into package pricing,
nhumrich wrote 2 hours 32 min ago:
So, let me get this straight, the "platform fee" is baked into the
runner cost, but, their cheapest runner is the _same price_ as the
platform fee? So its the same price to have them run it vs have me run
it?
aeve890 wrote 43 min ago:
It's seems like a solid plan to me:
- charge the same you would pay for the GitHub runners
- you have to factor YOUR server cost also, so self hosted will cost
more than the platform option
- you jump to the platform runners and save on servers, sysadmin,
DevOps, etc.
And then they grab you by the balls and raise the prices.
r2vcap wrote 2 hours 44 min ago:
This is a serious issue. How is it possible for GitHub/Microsoft to
charge me for using my own machine as a self-hosted GitHub Actions
runner?
Bognar wrote 58 min ago:
They're charging you for orchestration, log storage, artifact
storage, continued development of the runner binary itself and
features available to self-hosted machines. What would your own
machine do without the runner and service it connects to?
naian wrote 1 hour 27 min ago:
For the same reason they charge you for running Word, even though
you're the one who has to write, I guess?
bdbdbdb wrote 2 hours 27 min ago:
I'll be investigating gitlab tomorrow
000ooo000 wrote 2 hours 17 min ago:
Have used all of the big 4 forges in anger over the last decade.
GitLab isn't perfect, but I'd take it over GitHub any day of the
week.
kavaruka wrote 2 hours 42 min ago:
it charges you to use the platform features that enable your use of
self-hosted runners
handfuloflight wrote 2 hours 42 min ago:
They still have to manage state between their servers and yours.
jbmsf wrote 2 hours 45 min ago:
I assume they want us to pay for their orchestration and also push
customers back to using their compute so everything is stickier.
But nothing they've done in the last few years has demonstrated
improvement in this area. As the person with both purchasing and final
authority on these things in my org, it's hard to stomach.
cdrnsf wrote 2 hours 48 min ago:
This seems totally unreasonable. How can they justify charging you
based on usage when it's running on and using your resources?
sentrysapper wrote 2 hours 41 min ago:
Postman pulled this same stunt in 2022, limiting how many times you
can run your own API class from your machine. To this day I've never
reconciled with them or their product management decisions.
hd4 wrote 3 hours 6 min ago:
Didn't see it mentioned yet but I like gitea and it's runner. It's all
in Go so very low overhead.
[1]: https://docs.gitea.com/usage/actions/act-runner
croemer wrote 1 hour 56 min ago:
Also supported by Forgejo actions: [1] - both based on
[1]: https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/user/actions/quick-start/
[2]: https://github.com/nektos/act
salzig wrote 2 hours 13 min ago:
sadly they, afaik, do not implement the permission model. So no way
to control the token permissions.
(plz correct me if i'm wrong)
coffeecoders wrote 3 hours 13 min ago:
Charging by minute might push people toward shorter, noisier and more
fragmented pipelines. It feels more like a lever to discourage
selfhosting over time.
It's not outrageous money today, but it's a clear signal about where
they want CI to live.
guluarte wrote 3 hours 16 min ago:
it looks ms wants to kill all their IP, xbox, windows, now github
tacticus wrote 2 hours 58 min ago:
blanket 30% profit margin is great right?
danra wrote 3 hours 16 min ago:
Geez. This would've been much more agreeable had they bothered to fix
years-old open bugs with self-hosted runners
evanmoran wrote 3 hours 18 min ago:
GitHub actions are expensive enough that self-hosted was the only real
option. I can't imagine this will do anything other than push people
from the entire ecosystem.
eugercek wrote 3 hours 18 min ago:
Companies like Ubicloud gives hosted actions faster and far more
cheaper (5-10x) than Microsoft itself.
Now Microsoft will charge "data plane usage" (CRUDing a row that
contains (id, ts, state_enum, acc_id ...) in essence) 2.5 more than
what Ubicloud offers for WHOLE compute. Also to have "fair pricing"
they'll make you pay 2.5 more the compute's price for being able to use
their data plane.
cool.
suryao wrote 3 hours 16 min ago:
it's rather egregious that it is a "per minute" tax rather than a
$0.002 per job.
bellajbadr wrote 3 hours 19 min ago:
If they charge me for my self-hosted runner i will just move to Gitlab.
This is theft..or let's say this is microsoft.
MrKitai wrote 3 hours 42 min ago:
Seriously. They're charging me for using MY cpus?
Forgejo incoming testing period..
vbezhenar wrote 1 hour 35 min ago:
A lot of server software does that. People were paying absurd prices
for fast Xeons to save on their Oracle bills.
PunchyHamster wrote 46 min ago:
Reminds me of a customer that had in their contract requirements
GHz amount so after we won the contract we digged out some old P4
based Xeons (everything after for a long time had lower clocks) and
they got their stuff ran on old junk because it would be breach of
contact not to.
It was govt thing and they are required to put a new bid every few
years and their bid was EVIDENTLY "just list what our current
hosting provider has, we can't be arsed to spend months migrating
infrastructure every few years", but the clever weasels in the
sales managed to get them.
nrhrjrjrjtntbt wrote 2 hours 30 min ago:
Like BYO wine I guess.
rileymat2 wrote 2 hours 37 min ago:
It’s not unheard of, similarish to many core licensing schemes.
Like mssql.
gabrielgio wrote 1 hour 12 min ago:
Not the same thing. The equivalent would be mssql charging by web
server connections to it.
chrisweekly wrote 3 hours 54 min ago:
Personally, I quite liked GitLab CI when I used it circa 2021-23. Just
now I did a quick search and found this article^1 suggesting (even
before this GH pricing change) Gitlab CI may be a better choice than
Github Actions.
1.
[1]: https://medium.com/@the_atomic_architect/github-vs-gitlab-2025...
nhumrich wrote 2 hours 34 min ago:
I LOVE gitlab, but their new pricing is absurd. It feels like they
are trying to shovelware their AI stuff. Their cheapest plan is more
than 7x the cost of github, AND more expensive than github
enterprise! And thats on the _cheapest_ non free gitlab plan.
If you self host gitlab entirely, you can't even get
branch/force-push protection. If they could bring their pricing to
even just 2x github by having a NON-AI plan, I would purchase again
in a heartbeat.
notnullorvoid wrote 26 min ago:
I had to go check to see what their pricing was, and I couldn't
believe it. The base tier was $4/month, now that tier is gone and
the premium tier is 2x what it used to be only 5 years ago.
salzig wrote 2 hours 17 min ago:
You mean "Protected branches"? Last time I checked that was part of
the free tier, and the documentation[0] states the same.
[0]:
[1]: https://docs.gitlab.com/user/project/repository/branches/p...
inchidi wrote 2 hours 41 min ago:
used to self-host gitlab CI runners around the same year also for our
long running CI's due to db migrations + prepared data loading for
tests.
we rent 7*4$ VPS, install gitlab CI runners on them, saving us from
hundreds $$$ per month and 45mins/merge (with test running on main
branch only) to 7*4$/month and 7-9mins/commit (yes, we run full test
on each commit and let gitlab auto-cancel older one).
with bonus: FE team get live version of their changes on each MR.
* its 7 VPS because we separated the tests by modules and we have 7
major modules.
* edit: formatting
Arubis wrote 2 hours 48 min ago:
GitLab CI is _excellent_. Github Actions has come a long way, but a
few years back it was absolutely painful working with GA when I had
GitLab CI for reference.
esseph wrote 3 hours 42 min ago:
GitLab CI is quite good. Have been using it for several years.
pornel wrote 3 hours 2 min ago:
I can't tolerate it.
The split between tag and branch pipelines seems like intentional
obfuscation with no upsides (you can't build non-latest commit from
a branch, and when you use a tag to select the commit, GitLab
intentionally hides all branch-related info, and skips jobs that
depend on branch names).
"CI components" are not really components, but copy-paste of YAML
into global state. Merging of jobs merges objects but not arrays,
making composition unreliable or impossible.
The `steps` are still unstable/experimental. Composing multiple
steps either is a mess of appending lines of bash, or you have go
all the way in the other direction and build layered Docker images.
I could go on all day. Programming in YAML is annoying, and GitLab
is full of issues that make it even clunkier than it needs to be.
opello wrote 1 hour 44 min ago:
My ready example of a GitLab pain point is parallel matrix job
names include the matrix variables and quite easily, in complex
configurations, exceed the static 255 character limit of job
names, preventing job creation/execution.
There's been years of discussion about ways to fix it with
nothing moving forward. [1] And the most recent tracking issue:
[1]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/263401
[2]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/285853
sangeeth96 wrote 2 hours 54 min ago:
I have fond memories of using GitLab CI in 2018–2019 and I'm
still pissed GitHub didn't just life and shift that kind of a
model. Not sure about the particular issues you're running into
but I remember GitLab supporting a lot of the YAML features
missing in GitHub like anchors in order to build/compose stuff.
Oh and turns out GitHub also has that now: [1] UPDATE: okay they
botched it
[1]: https://github.blog/changelog/2025-09-18-actions-yaml-an...
[2]: https://frenck.dev/github-actions-yaml-anchors-aliases-m...
pixelpoet wrote 3 hours 55 min ago:
Zig's decision to ditch GitHub actions seems remarkably prescient, no?
patrick4urcloud wrote 3 hours 45 min ago:
yes ! i'm actually doing the same as i saw the safe_sleep.sh code on
their runners ... insane story ...
QuercusMax wrote 3 hours 5 min ago:
Can you elaborate on what you're referring to? Sounds interesting.
neb_b wrote 2 hours 57 min ago:
[1] fun video on it:
[1]: https://github.com/actions/runner/issues/3792
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3_95BZYIVs
QuercusMax wrote 2 hours 51 min ago:
Wow, that's horrifyingly bad. Like "didn't think about it for
more than 30 seconds before committing" bad.
shevy-java wrote 4 hours 9 min ago:
So Microsoft is slowly killing it. Not surprising.
benced wrote 4 hours 13 min ago:
Are there bring-your-own-agent CI platforms that don't have pricing
structures like this? Buildkite and CircleCI do.
olafmol wrote 2 hours 14 min ago:
CircleCI does only charge for self-hosted runners generated egress
and/or artifact storage:
"Any Network Egress to CircleCI will be charged. At this current
time, this includes CircleCI Caches, Workspaces, and Artifacts and
will be charged at the normal rate according to your Usage Controls.
The only network traffic that will result in billing is accrued
through restoring caches and workspaces, and downloading artifacts to
self-hosted runners. Retention of artifacts, workspace, and cache
objects will result in billing for storage usage.
Since your builds will not be running on CircleCI's Infrastructure,
you will not be charged compute credits" [1] I think that's fair. In
my personal opinion most people started using GitHub Actions because
it “came for free with the VCS and/or our MS contract” and it was
“good enough for the job”. Now might be a good time to look
around at the alternatives again. There is a reason that f.e.
CircleCI is doing fully focused CI/CD for 10+ years and is still
going strong. Plenty of businesses don’t want to put all their eggs
in one (MS) basket, for all kinds of reasons. I guess today one of
these reasons became obvious.
Disclaimer: I work at CircleCI.
[1]: https://support.circleci.com/hc/en-us/articles/2064321965685...
fishpen0 wrote 3 hours 34 min ago:
gitlab
perbu wrote 4 hours 15 min ago:
The reason this makes sense, at least for Github, is because the only
valid reason to run your own action runners is compliance. And if you
are doing it for compliance, price doesn't really matter. You don't
really have a choice.
If you've been running your runners on your own infra for cost reasons,
you're not really that interesting to the Github business.
saagarjha wrote 1 hour 44 min ago:
Not just compliance, we run CI against machines that they don’t
offer, like those with big GPUs.
briHass wrote 2 hours 15 min ago:
Maybe if everything you use is public-cloud-deployed.
Self-hosted runners help bridge the gap with on-prem servers, since
you can pop a runner VM inside your infra and give it the
connectivity/permissions to do deployments.
This announcement pisses me off, because it's not something related
to abuse/recouping cost, since they could impose limits on free plans
or whatever.
This will definitely influence me to ensure all builds/deployments
are fully bash/powershell scripted without GH Action-specific steps.
Actions are a bit of a dumpster fire anyway, so maybe I'll just go
back to TeamCity like I used before Actions.
zamalek wrote 3 hours 37 min ago:
Github runners are slow. We're using WarpBuild and they are still
cheaper per-minute, even with all the changes Github has made. Then
there's the fact that the machines are faster, so we are using fewer
minutes.
There are multiple competitors in this space. If you are (or were)
paying for Github runners for any reason, you really shouldn't be.
Sytten wrote 1 hour 7 min ago:
We also use WarpBuild and very happy with the performance gain.
This changes nothing except maybe it should signal to WarpBuild to
start supporting other providers than Github. We are clearly
entering the enshitiffication phase of Github.
suryao wrote 1 hour 5 min ago:
thanks for the love! we are actively considering supporting other
providers.
suryao wrote 3 hours 35 min ago:
Thanks for the WarpBuild love!
Performance is the primary lever to pay less $0.002/min self
hosting tax and we strive to provide the best performance runners.
esseph wrote 3 hours 40 min ago:
Performance and data locality.
You can throw tons of cores and ram locally at problems without any
licensing costs.
Your data may be local, makes sense to work with it locally.
CafeRacer wrote 3 hours 59 min ago:
I needed arm64 workers, because x86 would take ~25 minutes to do a
build.
normie3000 wrote 2 hours 12 min ago:
TIL amd64 is also called x86-64.
llimllib wrote 3 hours 40 min ago:
if it's useful, they do actually have arm workers now for linux and
mac:
[1]: https://github.com/actions/runner-images/tree/main?tab=rea...
justincormack wrote 3 hours 42 min ago:
They have these now.
CER10TY wrote 3 hours 37 min ago:
Only for public repos though - if you're in an org with private
repositories you don't get access to them (yet).
Marsymars wrote 3 hours 5 min ago:
You do, you just have to set them up at the organization level.
Windows/Linux/macOS are all available.
peterldowns wrote 4 hours 17 min ago:
I'm happy to see they're investing in Actions — charging for it
should help make sure it continues to work. It's a huge reason Github
is so valuable: having the status checks run on every PR,
automatically, is great. Even though I'm more of a fan of Buildkite
when it comes to configuring the workflows, I still need something to
kick them off when PRs change, etc.
Charging a per-workflow-minute platform fee makes a lot of sense and
the price is negligible. They're ingesting logs from all the runners,
making them available to us, etc. Helps incentivize faster workflows,
too, so pretty customer-aligned. We use self-hosted runners (actually
WarpBuild) so we don't benefit from the reduced default price of the
Github-hosted runners, but that's a nice improvement as well for most
customers. And Actions are still free for public repos.
Now if only they'd let us say "this action is required to pass _if it
runs_, otherwise it's not required" as part of branch protection rules.
Then we'd really be in heaven!
fishpen0 wrote 2 hours 58 min ago:
This pricing model will continue to incentivize them internally to
not fix the hundreds of clearly documented issues that causes CI to
be incredibly slow. Everything from their self-inflicted
bottlenecking of file transfers to the safe_sleep bug that randomly
makes a runner run forever until it times out. All of it now makes
them more money
Bjartr wrote 3 hours 37 min ago:
> charging for it should help make sure it continues to work
It's there a particular reason you're extending the benefit of the
doubt here? This seems like the classic playbook of making something
free, waiting for people to depend on it, then charging for it, all
in order to maximize revenue. Where does the idea that they're really
doing this in order to deliver a more valuable service come from?
peterldowns wrote 2 hours 59 min ago:
I appreciate being able to pay for a service I rely on. Using
self-hosted runners, I previously paid nothing for Github Actions
— now I do pay something for it. The price is extremely cheap and
seems reasonable considering the benefits I receive. They've shown
continued interest in investing in the product, and have a variety
of things on their public roadmap that I'm looking forward to
(including parallel steps) — [1] .
Charging "more than nothing" is certainly not what I would call
maximizing revenue, and even it they were maximizing revenue I
would still make the same decision to purchase or abandon based on
its value to me. Have you interacted with the economy before?
[1]: https://github.com/orgs/github/projects/4247?pane=issue&it...
blibble wrote 2 hours 47 min ago:
> The price is extremely cheap
and you expect it to stay this way?
peterldowns wrote 2 hours 26 min ago:
> and seems reasonable considering the benefits I receive.
> I would still make the same decision to purchase or abandon
based on its value to me.
asmor wrote 3 hours 33 min ago:
Yeah. This is a reaction to providers like blacksmith or
self-hosted solutions like the k8s operator being better at
operating their very bad runner then them, at cheaper prices, with
better performance, more storage and warm caches. The price cut is
good, the anticompetitive bit where they charge you to use
computers they don't provide isn't. My guess is that either we're
all gonna move to act or that one of the SaaS startups sue.
NewJazz wrote 3 hours 41 min ago:
I don't think it makes sense to charge per minute just for logs. If
they want to charge for log retention, sure, go ahead. But that is
pennies, let's be real.
tensegrist wrote 4 hours 24 min ago:
> Coming soon: Simpler pricing and a better experience for GitHub
Actions
i think it should be illegal or otherwise extremely damaging to do this
kind of thing
msm_ wrote 3 hours 0 min ago:
Come on, editorializing the post title is against HN guidelines, but
making it illegal is a bit too harsh.
some_furry wrote 4 hours 49 min ago:
Oh great. I finally get used to GitHub Actions after Travis CI shat the
bed, and now I have to find something else.
Thanks, enshittification.
EatFlamingDeath wrote 3 hours 39 min ago:
Hey man, that's not fair. They cannot enshittify what has always been
shit to begin with.
vrosas wrote 2 hours 41 min ago:
Oh you sweet summer child
matthewmacleod wrote 4 hours 7 min ago:
What part of this is “enshittification”? It’s just a company
starting to charge for a formerly free service. Hardly seems like
that aggressive a move.
ok123456 wrote 3 hours 2 min ago:
They're squeezing their customers after locking in to juice their
margins, having become a monopoly/monopsony. This is the classic
enshitificaton playbook.
matthewmacleod wrote 1 hour 18 min ago:
Nobody is locked in (unless they made some incredibly bad
decisions) and this is a tiny fee in exchange for a useful
service. I’m just baffled by the response to this.
some_furry wrote 3 hours 43 min ago:
From [1] "Here is how platforms die: First, they are good to their
users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their
business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to
claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die."
We are on step 2: then they abuse their users to make things better
for their business customers.
[1]: https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-platforms-cory-doctorow...
matthewmacleod wrote 1 hour 20 min ago:
It is not abuse to charge what amounts to a relatively small fee
for a useful service.
defraudbah wrote 5 hours 11 min ago:
this is the third article about it, we know, good times are over, will
start migrating towards something else
shevy-java wrote 4 hours 6 min ago:
It definitely adds to frustration for some people; this can not be
denied.
sallveburrpi wrote 4 hours 27 min ago:
don’t lie you’ll just bitch and moan and keep using it anyway
bdbdbdb wrote 5 hours 30 min ago:
This seems backwards. Why charge for me to run the thing myself instead
of them?
vbezhenar wrote 1 hour 28 min ago:
Because charging you brings more profits than not charging you.
IshKebab wrote 1 hour 37 min ago:
Because they make money from charging way over cost price for
per-minute CI runners, and they don't want people using much much
cheaper alternative providers.
They don't care about people actually self-hosting. They care about
people "self hosting" with these guys:
[1]: https://github.com/neysofu/awesome-github-actions-runners
vsl wrote 2 hours 23 min ago:
Because GHA was stagnant and expensive and multiple services like [1]
popped up, with better performance and much lower price. Looks like
they ate enough of GH’s lunch…
[1]: https://www.warpbuild.com/
suryao wrote 1 hour 28 min ago:
Hey, WarpBuild founder here.
While it makes it harder for us to communicate this, we're still,
we're still faster and cheaper even after the $0.002/min self
hosting tax.
Overall costs go up for everyone but we remain the better option.
baq wrote 4 hours 10 min ago:
The scheduler isn’t free, I always wondered how the financials work
on this one. Turns out they didn’t ;)
Anyway, GitHub actions is a dumpster fire even without this change.
naikrovek wrote 4 hours 51 min ago:
Because they host the artifacts, logs, and schedule jobs which run on
your runners, I assume.
falsedan wrote 4 hours 14 min ago:
they charge you for artifacts and logs separately, already
progval wrote 4 hours 17 min ago:
Then why do they charge by the minute instead of gigabytes and
number of events?
gaigalas wrote 4 hours 59 min ago:
I develop software, I also test and run it. All in my machines.
But you (yes, you personally) have to collect the results and publish
them to a webpage for me. For free.
Would you make this deal?
palata wrote 2 hours 16 min ago:
But I get to read all your code and use it for training my AI,
right?
gaigalas wrote 1 hour 50 min ago:
My projects are public anyway. If you respect the license and
make the AI comply to valid license reuse, I'm game.
bdbdbdb wrote 2 hours 28 min ago:
It sounds like a bad deal right?
Except the alternative is I do this for free but also I'm doing all
the testing and providing the hardware.
I'm only going to charge you if you do most of the work yourself
gaigalas wrote 1 hour 53 min ago:
If you do it all, you can optimize the whole supply chain. Maybe
you can put some expensive capacity you built to use and leverage
it when otherwise impossible, etc.
Maybe it's bad business dealing with lots of non-standardized
external hosts, and it drags you down.
Maybe people are abusing the free orchestration to do non-CI
stuff and they're compromising legitimate users.
Look, I understand it's frustrating to some consumers. However,
it's not irrational from GitHub's point of view.
janc_ wrote 29 min ago:
This is actually about abusing Microsoft's market position to
eliminate competitors in related markets, plain & simple.
falsedan wrote 4 hours 12 min ago:
if you were paying me a monthly license fee for each developer
working on your repos, I'd probably consider it
gaigalas wrote 3 hours 43 min ago:
What happens if I am, and now my developers suddenly start to
produce changes much faster? Like, one developer now produces the
volume of five.
Would you keep charging the same rate per head?
falsedan wrote 3 hours 11 min ago:
no, I'd cut the monthly seat cost and grow my user base to
include more low-volume devs
but realistically, publishing a web page is practically free.
you could be sending 100x as much data and I would still be
laughing all the way to the bank
gaigalas wrote 1 hour 51 min ago:
Publishing the page is only the last step. It's orchestrating
the stuff THEN publishing it.
If you think that's easy, do it for me. I have some projects
to migrate, give me the link of your service.
janc_ wrote 22 min ago:
There are several services I know who offer this for free
for open source software, and I really doubt any commercial
offerings of that software would charge you extra for what
is basic API usage.
mindcrash wrote 5 hours 4 min ago:
Because they know Forgejo is starting to get attention from major
players and thus becoming competitive, and hosting your own CI
infrastructure will make completely moving away from GitHub all that
easier - If you don't really care about the metadata all it pretty
much takes is moving git repositories with their history.
Or shortly summarized: lock in through pricing.
Pretty sure this will explode straight in their faces though. And
pretty damn hard.
PunchyHamster wrote 44 min ago:
Not sure why you think forgejo is competition and not Gitlab.
> Or shortly summarized: lock in through pricing.
how would increasing price make you locked in more ?
> If you don't really care about the metadata all it pretty much
takes is moving git repositories with their history.
moving PR/CI/CD/Ticket flow is very significant effort, as in most
companies that stuff is referenced everywhere. Having your commits
refer ticket ID from system that no longer exists is royal PITA
ozim wrote 1 hour 14 min ago:
I would keep repos on GH but use Jenkins though.
selkin wrote 3 hours 9 min ago:
I don't think Forgejo is competitive in the markets GitHub makes
most of their money from, nor does it seem Forgejo developers want
it to be.
mindcrash wrote 2 hours 34 min ago:
Representatives from the Dutch government recently had a chat
with representatives from Forgejo because they are quite
interested in migrating their SCM infrastructure from Github to
Forgejo.
And trust me, they are running a lot of public and private
repositories.
And there are many more orgs and govs throughout Europe doing
similar things because there's a (growing) zeitgeist here that
the Trump administration nor any American SaaS company can be
trusted. This started, by the way, after Microsoft suspended the
ICJ from using Microsoft 365 on orders from the White House.
janc_ wrote 58 min ago:
The Dutch government represenrative mentioned contacts with
French colleagues about this also.
dijit wrote 1 hour 30 min ago:
Can confirm.
I have seen this sentiment more and more, which is welcome to
me as it’s a drum I have been banging for 15 years.
I have never had so many empathetic conversations than I have
recently.
mindcrash wrote 1 hour 11 min ago:
Sounds familiar!
Everybody now is like "Hey, we can take something like
Kubernetes which is open source and is backed by a worldwide
community, and you know like OpenStack which is open source
and is backed by a worldwide community and we can build our
own computing platform and deploy services and online
communities and stuff on top of that"
And I was like "Wait, you guys are realizing that NOW?!? I've
been an activist and part of a movement urging you all to try
and be less dependent on US Big Tech and focus more on
decentralization for YEARS"
Like you I am really happy things seem to get rolling now,
though :)
parliament32 wrote 2 hours 49 min ago:
Where does GitHub even make most of their money? Their compliance
posture makes them a non-starter for any regulated industries
(which is atypical for a Microsoft property, generally MS is the
market leader for compliance in all of their products).
sakisv wrote 2 hours 7 min ago:
Given that a lot of places that deal with money use them, I
find your comment quite interesting and would like to learn
more :)
newsoftheday wrote 3 hours 56 min ago:
My view is it's their platform but it seems like a scummy move to
tax selfhosters.
I checked out Forgejo's site just now, they are kind of politically
oriented instead of code oriented so I wouldn't use them:
"Brought to you by an inclusive community under the umbrella of
Codeberg e.V., a democratic non-profit organization..."
Inclusive == Strike 1
democratic == Strike 2
ajford wrote 1 hour 36 min ago:
Inclusivity and democratic governance of a project is a strike to
you? Seems like perhaps your hat is showing...
ted_dunning wrote 3 hours 29 min ago:
Democratic organization is a strike?
Where do you live that that seems like a bad idea?
esseph wrote 3 hours 38 min ago:
Inclusive is strike 1?
What color are you?
I'm sure I can find a company that supports ethnostates if you
need that for your next project.
sallveburrpi wrote 4 hours 30 min ago:
How can you lock in through charging money?
Seems it’s like the opposite and they are charging because people
are already locked in and they can or am I misreading your comment?
dragonwriter wrote 1 hour 45 min ago:
If you make running your own runners as expensive as running on
Github's runners on top of the cost of actually hosting the
runners, then if you are currently on Github and not able to
migrate off immediately, the price conscious decision is to
migrate runners into Github. But then, its even harder if you
ever decide to migrate your whole operation out.
Now, if you are already looking at migrating, its also
potentially a kick in the butt to do it now. But if you aren’t,
the path of least resistance—or at least, the path of least
present recurring cost—is a path to a greater degree of
lock-in.
Vegenoid wrote 3 hours 59 min ago:
The idea is that they let you stay locked in for free. They
dissuade people from making their CI pipeline forge-agnostic by
charging you if you if you take steps to not be dependent on
them. This means they can keep charging in other areas, and keep
people in GitHub so that it stays dominant. Dominance is
something that can be used to keep people in the Microsoft
ecosystem, keep GitHub as the place where code goes so they have
training data for LLMs, and dominance can simply be cashed in
down the line.
I don’t know if that’s actually why they’re doing this, b…
it sounds plausible.
mindcrash wrote 4 hours 10 min ago:
Microsoft "suddenly" does not seem to want you to run your own
CI, which is a key part of running your own SCM. And this
decision miraculously happens the moment a lot of big orgs are
looking at self-hosting a cost effective (because open source)
near 1:1 alternative to GitHub (=Forgejo).
So they make CI a bit cheaper but a future migration to Forgejo
harder.
In fact they could easily pull off some typical sleazy Microsoft
bullshit and eventually make it a shit ton harder to migrate out
of GitHub once you migrated back in.
larkost wrote 5 hours 5 min ago:
GitHub has still been managing the orchestration and monitoring of
runs that you run on your own (or other cloud) hardware. They have
just decided that they are no longer going to do this for free.
So the question becomes: is $0.002/minute a good price for this. I
have never run GitHub Actions, so I am going to assume that
experience on other, similar, systems applies.
So if your job takes an hour to build and run though all tests (a bit
on the long side, but I have some tests that run for days), then you
are going to pay GitHub $.12 for that run. You are probably going to
pay significantly more for the compute for running that (especially
if you are running on multiple testers simultaneously). So this does
not seem to be too bad.
This is probably going to push a lot of people to invest more in
parallelizing their workloads, and/or putting them on faster machines
in order to reduce the number of minutes they are billed for.
I should note that if you are doing something similar in AWS using
SMS (Systems Management Service), that I found that if you are
running small jobs on lots of system that the AWS charges can add up
very quickly. I had to abandon a monitoring system idea I had for our
fleet (~800 systems) because the per-hit cost of just a monitoring
ping was $1.84 (I needed a small mount of data from an on-worker
process). Running that every 10 minutes was going to be more than
$250/day. Writing/running my own monitoring system was much cheaper.
skilning wrote 49 min ago:
> is $0.002/minute a good price for this
Absolutely not, since it's the same price as their cheapest hosted
option. If all they're doing is orchestration, why the hell are
they charging per-minute instead of per-action or some other
measure that recognizes the difference in their cost between
self-hosted and github-hosted?
ajford wrote 1 hour 28 min ago:
Sure, but that shouldn't be a time-dependent charge. If my build
takes an hour to build on GH's hardware, sure thing, charge me for
that time. But if my build takes an hour to build on _my_ hardware,
then why am I paying GH for that hour?
I get being charged per-run, to recoup the infra cost, but what
about my total runtime on my machine impacts what GH needs to spend
to trigger my build?
dragonwriter wrote 1 hour 29 min ago:
> They have just decided that they are no longer going to do this
for free.
Right, instead, they now charge the full cost of orchestration plus
runner for just the orchestration part, making the basic runner
free.
(Considering that compute for "self-hosted" runners is often also
rented from some party that isn't Microsoft, this is arguably
leveraging the market power in CI orchestration that is itself
derived from their market power in code hosting to create/extend
market power in compute for runners, which sounds like a potential
violation of both the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.)
gen220 wrote 2 hours 9 min ago:
Yeah, I'm no GitHub apologist, but I'll be one in this context.
This is actually a not-unreasonable thing to charge for. And a
price point that's not-unreasonable.
It makes sense to do usage-based pricing with a generously-sized
free tier, which seems to be what they're doing? Offering the
entire service for free at any scale would imply that you're
"paying" for/subsidizing this orchestration elsewhere in your
transactions with GitHub. This is more-transparent pricing.
Although, this puts downward pressure on orgs' willingness to pay
such a large price for GH enterprise licenses, as this service was
hitherto "implicitly" baked into that fee. I don't think the
license fees are going to go down any time soon, though :P
gallexme wrote 2 hours 11 min ago:
I run about 1 action a day taking 18h running on 2 runners
One being self hosted 24gb ram 8 core ARM vps and one being a 64gb
13900k x86 dedicated server
Now the GitHub pricing change definitely? costs more than both
servers combined a month ... (They cost about 60$ together )
3 step GitHub action builds around 1200 nix packages and
derivations , but produces only around 50 lines of logs total if
successful and maybe 200 lines of log once when a failure occurs
And I'm supposed to pay 4$ a day for that ?
Wonder what kind of actual costs are involved on their side of
waiting for a runner to complete and storing 50 lines of log
janc_ wrote 45 min ago:
Somewhere around 0.00004$ probably.
Nice profit margin…
deathanatos wrote 3 hours 25 min ago:
You know, one might ask what the base fee of $4k/mo (in my org's
case) is covering, if not the control plane?
Unless you're on the free org plan, they're hardly doing it "for
free" today…
numbsafari wrote 3 hours 18 min ago:
Exactly this. It’s not like they don’t have plenty of other
fees and charges. What’s next, charging mil rates for webhook
deliveries?
whynotmaybe wrote 3 hours 30 min ago:
> is $0.002/minute a good price for this
It was free, so anything other than free isn't really a good price.
It's hard to estimate the cost on github's side when the hardware
is mine and therefore accept this easily.
(Github is already polling my agent to know it's status so whether
is "idle" or "running action" shouldn't really change a lot on
their side.)
...And we already pay montly subscription for team members and
copilot.
I have a self-hosted runner because I must have many tools
installed for my builds and find it kinda counter productive to
always reinstall those tools for each build as this takes a long
time.
(Yeah, I know "reproducible builds" aso, but I only have 24h in
most of my days)
Even for a few hundreds minutes a month, we're still under a few $
so not worth spending two days to improve anything... yet.
saagarjha wrote 1 hour 47 min ago:
Is it polling the runner, or is the runner sending it progress?
ExoticPearTree wrote 1 hour 22 min ago:
The runner sends progress info, polls for jobs and so on. The
runners don't have to be accessible from GitHub, they just
needs general internet access (like through a NAT device).
featherless wrote 4 hours 20 min ago:
As a solo Founder who recently invested in self-hosted build
infrastructure because my company runs ~70,000 minutes/month, this
change is going to add an extra $140/month for hardware I own. And
that's just today; this number will only go up over time.
I am not open to GitHub extracting usage-based rent for me using my
own hardware.
This is the first time in my 15+ years of using GitHub that I'm
seriously evaluating alternative products to move my company to.
nebezb wrote 1 hour 32 min ago:
I get the frustration. And I’m no GitHub apologist either. But
you’re not being charged for hardware you own. You’re being
charged for the services surrounding it (the action
runner/executor binary you didn’t build, the orchestrator
configurable in their DSL you write, the artefact and log
retention you’re getting, the plug-n-play with your repo, etc).
Whether or not you think that is a fair price is beside the
point.
That value to you is apparently less than $140/mo. Find the
number you’re comfortable with and then move away from GH
Actions if it’s less than $140.
More than 10 years of running my own CI infra with Jenkins on
top.
In 2023 I gave up Jenkins and paid for BuildKite. It’s still my
hardware. BuildKite just provides the “services” I described
earlier. Yet I paid them a lot of money to provide their services
for me on my own hardware. GH actions, even while free, was never
an option for me. I don’t like how it feels.
This is probably bad for GitHub but framing it as “charging me
for my hardware” misses the point entirely.
larkost wrote 3 hours 34 min ago:
But it is not for hardware you own. It is for the use of GutHubs
coordinators, which they have been donating the use of to you for
free. They have now decided that that service is something they
are going to charge for. Your objection to GitHub "extracting
usage-based rent from me" seems to ignore that you have been
getting usage of their hardware for free up to now.
So, like I said, the question for you is whether that $140/month
of service is worth that money to you, or can you find a better
priced alternative, or build something that costs less yourself.
My guess is that once you think about this some more you will
decide it is worth it, and probably spend some time trying to
drive down your minutes/month a bit. But at $140 a month, how
much time is that worth investing?
PunchyHamster wrote 42 min ago:
so they are selling cent of their CPU time for a minute's worth
> My guess is that once you think about this some more you will
decide it is worth it, and probably spend some time trying to
drive down your minutes/month a bit. But at $140 a month, how
much time is that worth investing?
It's $140 right now. And if they want to squeeze you for cents
worth of CPU time (because for artifact storage you're already
paying separately), they *will* squeeze harder.
And more importantly *RIGHT NOW* it costs more per minute than
running decent sized runner!
featherless wrote 3 hours 27 min ago:
No. It is not worth a time-scaled cost each month for them to
start a job on my machines and store a few megabytes of log
files.
I'd happily pay a fixed monthly fee for this service, as I
already do for GitHub.
The problem here is that this is like a grocery store charging
me money for every bag I bring to bag my own groceries.
> But at $140 a month, how much time is that worth investing?
It's not $140/month. It's $140/month today, when my company is
still relatively small and it's just me. This cost will scale
as my company scales, in a way that is completely bonkers.
__turbobrew__ wrote 1 hour 7 min ago:
> It is not worth a time-scaled cost each month for them to
start a job on my machines and store a few megabytes of log
files
If it is so easy why don’t you write your own orchestrator
to run jobs on the hardware you own?
otterley wrote 2 hours 2 min ago:
> The problem here is that this is like a grocery store
charging me money for every bag I bring to bag my own
groceries.
This is an odd take because you're completely discounting the
value of the orchestration. In your grocery store analogy,
who's the orchestrator? It isn't you.
featherless wrote 1 hour 58 min ago:
Do you feel that orchestration runs on a per-minute basis?
otterley wrote 1 hour 56 min ago:
As long as they're reserving resources for your job
during the period of execution, it does.
featherless wrote 1 hour 15 min ago:
Charging people to maintain a row in a database by the
minute is top-tier, I agree.
otterley wrote 15 min ago:
If you really think that's all it is, I would
encourage you to write your own.
featherless wrote 12 min ago:
It would be silly to write a new one today. Plenty
of open source + indy options to invest into
instead.
For scheduled work, cron + a log sink is fine, and
for pull request CI there's plenty of alternatives
that don't charge by the minute to use your own
hardware. The irony here, unfortunately, is that
the latter requires I move entirely off of GitHub
now.
breppp wrote 3 hours 20 min ago:
> The problem here is that this is like a grocery store
charging me money for every bag I bring to bag my own
groceries.
Maybe they can market it as the Github Actions corkage fee
hugs wrote 3 hours 42 min ago:
feels like a new generation is learning what life is like when
microsoft has a lot of power. (tl;dr: they try to use it.)
PunchyHamster wrote 40 min ago:
Feels like listening to Halo generation being surprised MS
fucks them over, because they thought they were Good Guys, coz
they Made Thing They like
janc_ wrote 49 min ago:
ABuse it.
j45 wrote 4 hours 33 min ago:
Additionally, they could just self-host their code since code is
data is a moat.
mfcl wrote 5 hours 16 min ago:
They still run the whole orchestration.
If you don't want to pay, you'd have to not use GitHub Actions at
all, maybe by using their API to test new commits and PRs and mark
them as failed or passed.
codeflo wrote 4 hours 59 min ago:
One problem is that GitHub Actions isn't good. It's not like you're
happily paying for some top tier "orchestration". It's there and
integrated, which does make it convenient, but any price on this
piece of garbage makes switching/self-hosting something to
seriously consider.
hadlock wrote 4 hours 30 min ago:
Github being a single pane of glass for developers with a single
login is pretty powerful. Github hosting the runners is also
pretty useful, ask anyone who has had to actually manage/scale
them what their opinion is about Jenkins is. Being a "Jenkins
Farmer" is a thankless job that means a lot of on-call work to
fix the build system in the middle of the night at 2am on a
Sunday. Paying a small monthly fee is absolutely worth it to
rescue the morale of your infra/platform/devops/sre team.
Nothing kills morale faster than wrenching on the unreliable
piece of infrastructure everyone hates. Every time I see an alert
in slack github is having issues with actions (again) all I think
is, "I'm glad that isn't me" and go about my day
bigstrat2003 wrote 3 hours 54 min ago:
I run Jenkins (have done so at multiple jobs) and it's totally
fine. Jenkins, like other super customizable systems, is as
reliable or crappy as you make it. It's decent out of the box,
but if you load it down with a billion plugins and whatnot then
yeah it's going to be a nightmare to maintain. It all comes
down to whether you've done a good job setting it up, IMO.
hadlock wrote 3 hours 15 min ago:
Lots of systems are "fine" until they aren't. As you pointed
out, Jenkins being super-customizable means it isn't strongly
opinionated, and there is plenty of opportunity for a
well-meaning developer to add several foot-guns, doing some
simple point and click in the GUI. Or the worst case
scenario: cleaning up someone elses' Jenkins mess after they
leave the company.
Contrast with a declarative system like github actions: "I
would like an immutable environment like this, and then
perform X actions and send the logs/report back to the
centralized single pane of glass in github". Google's "cloud
run" product is pretty good in this regard as well. Sure,
developers can add foot guns to your GHA/Cloud Run workflow,
but since it is inherently git-tracked, you can simply revert
those atomically.
I used Jenkins for 5-7 years across several jobs and I don't
miss it at all.
QuercusMax wrote 4 hours 31 min ago:
Yeah, it seems like a half-assed version of what Jenkins and
other tools have been doing for ages. Not that Jenkins is some
magical wonderful tool, but I still haven't found a reasonable
way to test my actions outside of running them on real Github.
bad_haircut72 wrote 5 hours 0 min ago:
Everyone who has Actions built into their workflow now has to go
change it. Microsoft just conned a bunch more people with the same
classic tech lock-in strategy they've always pursued, people are
right to be pissed. The only learning to take away is never ever
use anything from the big tech companies, even if it seems easier
or cheaper right now to do so, because they're just waiting for the
right moment to try and claw it back from you.
baobun wrote 3 hours 1 min ago:
> Microsoft just conned a bunch more people with the same classic
tech lock-in strategy they've always pursued, people are right to
be pissed
People would be better served by not expecting anything different
from Microsoft. As you say yourself, this is how they roll.
> The only learning to take away is never ever use anything from
the big tech companies
Do you even believe in this yourself? Not being dependent on them
would be a good start.
nextaccountic wrote 5 hours 12 min ago:
Can someone share a Github bot that doesn't depend on actions?
I mean maybe [1] is enough to fully replace Github Actions? (not
sure)
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/bors
reissbaker wrote 5 hours 0 min ago:
You can use webhooks to replace Github Actions: [1] Listen to
webhooks for new commits + PRs, and then use the commit status
API to push statuses:
[1]: https://docs.github.com/en/webhooks/about-webhooks
[2]: https://docs.github.com/en/rest/commits/statuses?apiVers...
masklinn wrote 4 hours 24 min ago:
Yep, this mostly works fine (and can be necessary already in
some setups anyway), the main issues are that each status
update requires an API call (over v3, AFAIK updating statuses
was never added to v4) so if you have a lot of statuses and PR
traffic you can hit rate limits annoyingly quickly, and github
will regularly fail to deliver or forward webhooks (also no
ordering guarantees).
jjice wrote 5 hours 7 min ago:
We have internal integrations with GitHub webhooks that will hit
our server to checkout a branch, run some compute, and then post
a comment on the thread. Not sure if you can integrate something
like that to help block a PR from being merged like Actions CI
checks, but you can receive webhooks and make API calls for free
(for now). Would definitely result in some extra overhead to
implement outside of Actions for some tasks.
masklinn wrote 4 hours 17 min ago:
> Not sure if you can integrate something like that to help
block a PR from being merged like Actions CI checks
Post statuses, and add rulesets to require those statuses
before a PR can be merged. The step after that is to lock out
pushing to the branch entirely and perform the integration
externally but that has its own challenges.
dinosor wrote 6 hours 14 min ago:
related:
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46291156
<- back to front page
You are viewing proxied material from codevoid.de. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.