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
I've never felt like GitLab CI is more about testing software than anything else...

It's super flexible and you can do literally anything.

>>Philip+sA
When I last used it (Aug 2020) seemed like they were trying to evolve out of a stricter build/test/release flow, like Travis, and into a looser/more general workflow system, like CircleCI. At that point, it felt like the workflows were a bit half-baked – getting caching right between workflow steps so that you could build a performant pipeline that didn't repeat unnecessary work was tricky if I remember correctly.

Apart from feeling like they were in that sort of transition, GitLab's docs were fine, better than Circle's, but I find GitHub Actions much clearer.