As an Indy hacker I want to see GitHub succeed, but I ditched actions years ago - (shocking) false economy. Spend entire nights pushing to actions over and over only for complaints about weird/niche dependency issues and other oddities - the cycle time's just too slow and the DX is no fun (my pain doesn't even factor in outages; just the feature itself as it's intended to be experienced). I want to spend time talking to users and building features, not debugging weird syntax or dependency issues on a remote machine non-interactively.

So why are Actions so unreliable anyway? Occam's Razor would probably suggest the domain is inherently complex/difficult; but other providers show that reliability is possible. What would Occam's Razor suggest next? Poor management..?

▲

43 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

frisbee6152 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

What did you switch to, and what do you like about it?

▲

nomilk an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Running tests locally. It's primitive, but incredibly reliable, and a breeze to debug if (big if) there is any dependency issue.

▲

xixixao 37 minutes ago | parent [-]

How do you ensure you or your contributors didn’t forget to run the tests?

You’d need at least some hash of sources + test results, and check that it matches that (in CI).

And you’d still deal with environment differences.

	▲	nomilk 24 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> How do you ensure you didn’t forget to run the tests? Reasonable concern. In ~10 years of indy development, I haven't forgotten to run tests before pushing to main, ever. So setting up and maintaining complicated machinery to solve a problem that could (but never has) happened doesn't justify taking focus off other more important things, namely building. The benefit probably increases with team size (I'm a team of 1, so I appreciate the luxury of being able to dodge CI/CD entirely).

▲

juanre 22 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

A good Makefile goes a long way.