zlacker

>>marius+(OP)
One of the things I like about Actions is how much it's focused on automation rather than CI. The pain points I've had with Circle/GitLab/Travis have often boiled down to the fact that they are often very specifically about _testing software_, not _automating processes_, and not even _deploying software_.

On that last one, there's a potential bug in the deployment pipeline here – deploys could run simultaneously or some bad luck on runner speed could even see an older version of the code go out after a newer version. Combined with the automated database migrations this could be quite a big problem!

Actions thankfully solved this recently with the `concurrency` key that lets you form a serial queue by a given key such as the branch name.

>>danpal+O7
In GitLab you can limit concurrency by using a resource group https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2020/01/21/introducing-resourc...

Does that address your need?

Edit with more context: We use CI for deploying to GitLab.com and use resource_group to prevent multiple jobs from running concurrently. What we lack is the ability to prevent multiple pipelines from running concurrently (resource_group is at the job level). It looks like concurrency for actions https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/workflow-syntax... can work on groups which is a bit nicer. There is some discussion about making this better for GitLab in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/217522

>>sytse+Sk
While doing it at the job level is handy, doing it at the workflow or cross-job level is likely to become necessary as the complexity of the workflow scales. CircleCI has similar issues, syncing on one job can be done with a plugin, but cross-job sync never really works, and in our 10 step workflow where we have deploys queueing up in quick succession, we often find ordering issues.

GitHub Action's, Semaphore's, or even Jenkin's, concurrency primitives are pretty capable so I'd probably go with one of those.