Recently switched to a company using Github, and assumed I'd be blown away by their offering because of their size.
Well, I was, but not in the way I'd hoped. They're absolutely awful in comparison, and I'm beyond confused how it got to that state.
If I were running a company and had to choose between the two, I'd pick Gitlab every time just because of Github actions.
I have some GitHub actions for some side projects and it just seems so much more confusing to setup for some reason.
// Luckily still a gitlab user, but recently forced to Microsoft Teams and office.
my condolences to you and your team for that switch; it's my 2nd used-and-disliked thing (right next to atlassian) - oh well
but one cool feature i found with ms teams that zoom did not have (some years ago - no clue now) is turning off incoming video so you dont have to be constantly distracted in meetings
edit: oh yeah, re github actions and the user that said: > Glad I’m not the only one
me too, me too; gh actions seem frustrating (from a user hardly using gh actions, and more gitlab things - even though gitlab seems pretty wonky at times, too)
If you want to make a CI performant, you'll need to use some of its features like caches, parallel workers, etc. And GHA usability really fall short there.
The only reason I put up with it is that it's free for open source projects and integrated in GitHub, so it took over Travis-ci a few years ago.
> For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.
When the cli didnt have support for what I needed
one of them beeing echoing text to a file. to me, your comparison makes no sense.
Every time someone introduced a new way to use someone else's shared magic I feel nervous about using it. Like GitHub Actions. Perhaps it's time for me to dig into them a bit more and try to understand if/how they're safe to use. But I seem to remember just a few days ago someone mentioning a GitHub action getting hijacked?
For instance, AWS has a lot of actions they maintain to assist with common CI/CD needs with AWS services.
I will be stunned if this doesn't become a more popular attack vector over the next few years. Lots of valuable stuff sits in github, and they're a nearly-wide-open hole to access it.
Because the docs are crap perhaps? I prefer it, having used both professionally (and Jenkins, Circle, Travis), but I do think the docs are really bad. Even just the nesting of pages once you have them open, where is the bit with the actual bloody syntax reference, functions, context, etc.
A few years back I wanted to throw in the towel and write a more minimal GHA-compatible agent. I couldn't even find where in the code they were calling out to GitHub APIs (one goal was to have that first party progress UI experience). I don't know where I heard this, so big hearsay warning, but apparently nobody at GitHub can figure it out either.