Not the same company but similar discussions here:
- It was believed that GitHub would be more reliable than our self hosted Gitlab CI runners. This has proven to be very false.
- It was believed it would be easier to write tooling. I’m not on the dev tooling team, so can’t confirm if they found it true or not, but from the outside I see a lot more “Github can’t do that” than I did “Gitlab can’t do it”
Those are both hilarious to me. In my last FTE role we had the exact opposite beliefs - we wanted to leave GitLabs increases in pricing and move to annual sub, but the reliability of self-hosted runners and the flexibility (and clarity) of the CI system was fantastic.
The hilarious part is more the absurdity and cognitive disconnect experienced when reading about serious evaluations that went in a completely opposite direction to those directly participated in.
It's a ~year old product that started on GH. So this is the first time this team has had to think through "okay, so this isn't as reliable as it was at $oldjob."
Jenkins was (and still is) a PITA to maintain. Moved two different companies off from it to gh actions (self-managed runners in case of a second company), never had any regrets.
Did you have the conversation "do we need to move from $whatever CI/CD to GitHub Actions?" beforehand? What were the arguments in favour?