Does Codeberg provide free CI runners? I'd estimate Microsoft spends over $100m/year on free Github CI. Likely their biggest cost. It doesn't seem like a reasonable thing Codeberg to fund for free.
> Running CI/CD pipelines can use significant amounts of energy. As much as it is tempting to have green checkmarks everywhere, running the jobs costs real money and has environmental costs.
Honestly I think the mention of environmental costs has likely made users hesitant to sign up. Mentioning it costs real money is reasonable. Mentioning the environmental costs is not; the environmental harm is equivalent to the population buying a few dozen extra cars, which can easily be influenced by random marketing decisions by automakers and dealers.
In my experience reprimanding tech savvy people for the environmental costs of compute just doesn’t work. It’s far better to rephrase things into performance optimization problems, which naturally pique engineers’ interest.
Is it really that low an impact? A lot of the work performed in CI is duplicated (`apt update && apt install texlive-full` f.ex.), and thus there'd be a benefit to running it less often.
> Automated CI systems, large-scale dependency scanners, and ephemeral container builds, which are often operated by companies, place enormous strain on infrastructure.
> These commercial-scale workloads often run without caching, throttling, or even awareness of the strain they impose.
You can use your own Woodpecker instance with Codeberg. I do this at work and privately and it works great and is much faster than the free CI that Codeberg can afford.
I'm really interested in doing this - did you follow any guides or find helpful tutorials online? At the moment I'm using Codeberg's free CICD, but it's limited and I'd rather run my own.
Actually, that's only for the Woodpecker instance. Forgejo Actions can be used without asking for permission, and three tiers of (Linux-only, adm64-only) free runners are provided.
Been a while since I applied, but when I did the "reasonable case" was mostly just your repo being FOSS and having a license file (+ a very vague description of what you plan to do and how much resources you'll use)
