This is getting too much.I wonder what effects this will have on the reputation of Github. If I am blocked by Github every few days and can't properly operate. I will start looking for a more reliable alternative. And I am just a solo dev that pays $4, what happens to companies for whom time is worth a lot of money? Pretty disappointing.
How do you as a solo developer get blocked on anything related to GitHub? Are you doing all project planning on GitHub without any other copies elsewhere? Most if not everything you do on GitHub could be replicated locally, one way or another.
I can understand the problem for larger development teams, as a lot of communication and workflows can happen via GitHub Pull Requests or similar.
Maybe using their CI/CD?
CI/CD should you perform tasks that you could execute on any machine, besides the deployment, which should work differently locally VS via CI service. But it should still be possible to deploy without CI, otherwise you set yourself up for being unable to deploy when you really need it.
Github-actions is not created to encourage that though. It uses syntax that only works on Github. Look at their workflow-examples and you will see.
Don't you define things in your repository first (usually via a `Makefile`) and then call those things in the CI environment? Or are you building things differently in the CI environment compared to the local environment?
I mean, if you're working on a project that has tests, code coverage and binary builds setup, you usually have a `Makefile` or `package.json` or whatever to run your scripts, and your CI setup just calls those very same scripts but in their environment (sometimes with different arguments/environment variables).
Not sure why it would be different for GitHub Actions. It's certainly how I use it day-to-day.
no that's not how it works at all. The "actions" are proprietary to GitHub and hosted on GitHub. People create custom actions and allow others to reuse them. Everything is hooked in to GitHub via their proprietary yaml config.
> Not sure why it would be different for GitHub Actions.
because vendor lock-in. GitHub doesn't want to make it easy for you to switch.
I don't think github is trying to create lock-in, I think rather they were trying to make a way to easily share actions (not sure what other CIs systems are designed to have an ecosystem of publicly shared actions). The actions are public and therefore easy to make something that interprets them.
I can only guess at some point there will be a push for CIs to converge on some "actions" standard, maybe?