This seems nonsensical. Why would non-actions activity consume actions budget?

▲ semiquaver 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

  > Last month, we shared how GitHub Copilot code review runs on […] GitHub Actions using GitHub-hosted runners.

They say that they’re now billing against their actual costs

▲ WorldMaker 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Copilot Code Reviews are Actions workflows. Just privileged ones you can't edit the YAML for. They even litter your Actions tab list and Deployment environments.

▲ horsawlarway 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My guess is that they're moving to a spot where they can pitch an LLM "doing something" as an action, and copilot is their first move. I don't see it as crazy to think of a "copilot code review" in a similar way to other build actions.

But also - enterprise accounts already have budget assigned to github actions, and this allows them to start billing right away without having to actually get (or allow) businesses to evaluate the return of having copilot do code reviews.

So seems like it's a mix of immediate incentives and long term architecture. I don't like it, though. If I were an enterprise my first response would be to turn it off.

▲

swiftcoder 2 days ago | parent [-]

> enterprise accounts already have budget assigned to github actions, and this allows them to start billing right away without having to actually get (or allow) businesses to evaluate the return of having copilot do code reviews

Hang on, I read this as copilot reviews with bill both actions minutes and AI credits. Did I miss something?

	▲	zdragnar 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I'm assuming the running of the model is consuming the tokens, and the client coordinating and orchestrating the calls to the model to perform the review is happening in an action runner, thus using action minutes.

▲ freedomben 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Agreed, especially weird since they just rolled out usage-based billing for Co-pilot. It would make a lot more sense to just re-use that usage instead IMHO

▲

semiquaver 2 days ago | parent [-]

It does, read the article. This feature now consumes actions credits and AI credits.

	▲	freedomben 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah my mistake, I wasn't very clear in my comment. Though actually the more I think about it, I think this change actually does make more sense. In the case of the AI running on GitHub side, that does feel pretty equivalent to CI minutes. I would hope that the number of minutes they bill for is pretty minimal though, since the vast majority of that will be I/O waiting on the agent to return

▲ whalesalad 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Code review ostensibly takes place inside a container runtime just like tests or other actions would. It makes sense to me.

▲

PunchyHamster 2 days ago | parent [-]

but consumes vastly more resources than most app's build process.

Done that way it obfuscates cost of the code review and I think that's on purpose

	▲	whalesalad 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The cost of running a container (to github) is someone else not being able to run a container.

▲ tommy29tmar 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲ throwatdem12311 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

“F*ck you. Pay me.”

That’s why.