zlacker

>>MattIP+(OP)
I'm incredibly pleased about Microsoft's acquisition of Github, as I notice visible improvements every passing month. Considering Gitlab's pricing, I wonder why anyone would abandon GitHub Team or Enterprise plan in favor of Gitlab. Gitlab's costs are exorbitant, and they resemble Atlassian products, with an overwhelming number of features that are rarely used, cluttering the interface and diminishing the overall user experience.

>>mirzap+k5
I am not pleased with Microsoft. Yes, there have been some improvements. But GitHub Actions is very half baked, yet the bean counters at my company are asking "why do we pay for buildkite?". It feels like they are using the same playbook as MS Teams.

>>hamand+M6
What’s half baked about it?

>>simooo+m9
forgive me if my information is outdated, but:

- You can't retry a failed action, be it manually in the UI or automatically under certain conditions.

- workflows have a pretty low limit for number of jobs - 250 or so. We already split our rspec tests across 300 parallel jobs.

- the UX is full of jank. If I click into an in-progress jobs I often can't see prior logs for the in-progress step until the step completes.

There are also some annoyances that aren't really half-baked, but annoying for Monorepos:

- workflows have to be defined under the .github folder. This means workflows can't be collocated with the code they relate to.

- workflows can't be generated dynamically. At best, you can dynamically trigger predefined workflows, but I don't think they get associated with the PR that triggered them. This makes patterns like dynamically dispatching workflows based on, say, a bazel query for affected rdeps more challenging, if not entirely infeasible.