Meanwhile, I'm documenting my unreleased web framework and thinking about CI. Everything I've ever heard about GH Actions is is that it's terrible. I know for a fact Circle CI is terrible and has a huge carrying cost. Talk me out of just using ECS and bash.
TBH, All I've ever needed out of CI is: 1) tell me if the build passed and kick off a deploy, 2) if tests failed show the me terminal output, and 3) let me run tests using the environment CI is using.
Every CI I've used (over 20+ years) does (1) fine and utterly fails at (2) and (3).
@davetron5000 Sounds like I’m in the minority relative to your experience, but I actually don’t mind GitHub Actions (and the similar-but-different Forgejo Actions) especially relative to past experience with Circle and Travis.
Is GHA perfect? Nope. Have I had weird issues with it occasionally? Yep!
Have I had a less bad time with it than with other options? Definitely yep.
@davetron5000 GH actions have worked well for me for a rails API running minitest, simplecov → codecov, libvips, and about 100 gems.
I was particularly happy that cached bundled gems work pretty much automatically to save the repeated bundling when nothings changed in my deps across commits.
console output works fine, even term colors.
curious: what are your primary gripes with GH Actions?
@jm3 I’m don’t have any but just have heard lots of complaints about it and wondering if it’s something that people use out of inertia
@davetron5000 i mean, it being collocated with my src control and my issue tracking, and being low cost doesn’t hurt :)
fwiw i’ve not heard anything bad.
@jgarber Maybe it's "good enough to be complained about”?
@davetron5000 Travis is ok actually.
Still fails at 3 tho (at least for the web app I was doing, it was good enough... not sure about other types of development).
@davetron5000 I’ve used both CCI and GHA extensively and I’m pretty happy with GHA. I think my teams are getting value out of it.