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
One area is its reusability story. Last I looked you couldn't create reusable actions in the same repo you want to call them from, they have to be in an external repo. For quite a while, private reusable actions were an Enterprise-only feature, but that may have been lifted now. The ability to reuse particular jobs is also missing, and communication among jobs is limited to variables after the fact. You can only use success or failure states to trigger other jobs, you can't pass values.

>>jshier+be
> Last I looked you couldn't create reusable actions in the same repo you want to call them from, they have to be in an external repo.

I'm not sure if/when this changed, but you can definitely do this now.

> You can only use success or failure states to trigger other jobs, you can't pass values.

This is also not true: you can pipe environment variables to $GITHUB_OUTPUT which can be referenced by future jobs.

If anything, the main issue with GitHub Actions is that it's confusing, and the docs don't make it easy to understand how to do things at a high level.