How do you pay? Because the basic organization plan is free and gives access to GHA and includes 2000 free minutes.
If you upgrade the plan, you get more minutes for free - which can be consumed by the cost for free runners. They haven't specified at which rate a self-hosted runner consumes the free minutes, but at least for us, the change will largely consume free minutes.
> You might as well say that we should be paying per PR and Issue because, well, that part can’t just be free, you know?
You're misrepresenting what I said. I said, I'm fine with this for these reasons. It's a statement about me, not about what you should do nor what you should consider fine.
I pay (quite a bit) for GH because I do receive a service that's worth it, at least for now. And I'd rather see that GHA is something that makes them money than become something that is second-rate and lingers, just as it did before they made this announcement.
There would be if we were investing in our infrastructure the way we should be, rather than allowing an aging population to hoard their wealth and shirk their responsibilities.
> rather than allowing an aging population to hoard their wealth and shirk their responsibilities.
Middle-class Baby Boomers hoarding their wealth is exactly what we've been teaching them to do for decades. Save save save. I've been hearing it since the 1980s. Social Security is not going to be there for you.
And yet still a large part of them have no meaningful retirement, and no plan.
My father passed last year, penniless after a 50 year career engineer. My mother passed penniless after a 40 year career. It’s so sad. They thought they did everything right. They thought they had enough saved. They didn’t. It took everything from them.
Probably, but now it's going to be formalized and will entail a lot of paperwork (manual entry on many very badly written JAVA-based CRUD applications). Sure, these things are all good ideas, but trust me, they have all been overthought. Do you want this to be your job?
I still "own" (i.e. I'm the sole user with a root access and can install OS of my choosing) an old machine from the days before everything moved to a cloud and guess no one from IT has got to decommission it yet. I'm have no idea where it is located (besides knowing which office it is assigned to), never saw it, no way in hell am going to attach any tags and waste my time to install enterprise spyware on it or manually encrypt it's data. Do engineers do that for development servers on your job? If yes, name and shame!
Yeah that’s true. But a paid education doesn’t provide too much motivation anyway. College education is stuffed with unnecessary courses not everyone needs but you have to take anyway.
Like any business. The only valuable thing is that paper and network (that is if it’s a top 50 school).
The course I took on Literature of the Apocalypse, in fall of 1999, is probably one you would say is unnecessary. It has proven quite valuable as I learned how to read a lot, a lot more quickly. I learned how to write quickly as well. I also learned a lot about an important aspect of our cultural and political context, as western society is dominated by doomsday cults (especially the atheistic ones, everyone’s got a utopia they are trying to sell in order to get you to sacrifice your life for them).
For reference, Niagara Falls is at roughly the same latitude as Barcelona and Milan. Vääksy, Finland, is approximately 1,250 miles (2k km) north of there, slightly north of Anchorage, Alaska.
Latitude is a poor point of comparison here, North America tends to be substantially colder than Europe at the same latitude.
Or concretely Niagara Falls goes from an average low of -6.44 C in February to 21.0 C in July. Barcelona an average low of 4 C in January to 20.2 C in August (according to the internet).
But yes, it's warmer than Finland, just cold enough to see something of a freeze that cycle.
A couple days of -6 is probably a lot easier. Its probably still economical enough to heat the equipment on the days below 0. I imagine having a couple months of -20 is a bit different.
We use GitLab on the daily. Roughly 200 repos pushing to ~20 on any given day. There have been a few small, unpublished outages that we determined were server side since we have a geo-distributed team, but as a platform seems far more stable than 5-6 years ago.
My only real current complaint is that the webhooks that are supposed to fire in repo activity have been a little flaky for us over the past 6-8 months. We have a pretty robust chatops system in play, so these things are highly noticeable to our team. It’s generally consistent, but we’ve had hooks fail to post to our systems on a few different occasions which forced us to chase up threads until we determined our operator ingestion service never even received the hooks.
FWIW, GitHub is also unreliable with webhooks. Many recent GH outages have affected webhooks.
They are pretty good, in my experience, at *eventually* delivering all updates. The outages take the form of a "pause" in delivery, every so often... maybe once every 5 weeks?
Usually the outages are pretty brief but sometimes it can be up to a few hours. Basically I'm unaware of any provider whose webhooks are as reliable as their primary API. If you're obsessive about maintaining SLAs around timely state, you can't really get around maintaining some sort of fall-back poll.
> you can't really get around maintaining some sort of fall-back poll.
This has been my experience with GitHub Actions as well, which I imagine rely on the same underlying event system as webhooks.
Every so often, an Action will not be triggered or otherwise go into the void. So for Actions that trigger on push, I usually just add a cron schedule to them as well.
Completely agree on all points. We've had dual remotes running on a few high traffic repos pushing to both GitLab and GitHub simultaneously as a debug mechanism and our experiences mirror yours.
That has definitely not been my experience. I like Gitlab, but they've had regular incidents all along. If a git push failed I wouldn't question it, it's almost never my network. I'd just open Gitlab's Gitlab and find the current active issue.
To Gitlab's credit their observability seems to be good, and they do a good job communicating and resolving incidents quickly.
Some companies that shall not be named have status pages that always show green and might as well be a static picture. Some use words like "some customers may have experienced partial service degradation" to mean "complete downtime". Gitlab also has incidents, but they're a lot more trustworthy. You can just open the issue tracker and there's the full incident complete with diagnosis.
My org hosts it on prem, and while I don't like the way pages are organized for projects, I only really interact with the PR page and that is laid out well. Most of my interaction with git is happening from my terminal anyway so ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯
In my experience, this process typically spans multiple deploys. I would say the key insight that I have taken away from decades of applying this approach, is that data migrations need to be done in an __eventually consistent__ approach, rather than as an all-or-nothing, stop-the-world, global transaction or transformation.
Indeed, this pattern, in particular, is extremely useful in environments where you are trying to making changes to one part of a system while multiple deploys are happening across the entire system, or where you are dealing with a change that requires a large number of clients to be updated where you don't have direct control of those clients or they operate in a loosely-connected fashion.
So, regardless of AWS RDS as your underlying database technology, plan to break these steps up into individual deployment steps. I have, in fact, done this with systems deployed over AWS RDS, but also with systems deployed to on-prem SQL Server and Oracle, to nosql systems (this is especially helpful in those environments), to IoT and mobile systems, to data warehouse and analysis pipelines, and on and on.
50 every weekend is an exaggeration, but more people were murdered in Chicago from 2001 to 2021 than American soldiers died during the Global War on Terror (6,593 died in Iraq and Afghanistan vs. 11,561 in Chicago).
This is something of a red herring though as somewhere around 75% of those murders are black-on-black, with only a minority involving Latinos. Chicago primarily attracts attention not because of its murder rate (#22 in the country vs. Detroit at #5), but instead due to the size of its population and the prevalence of violent music that has come out of the region.
Not to dispute your point, but the GWoT was shockingly low casualty for the Americans. Almost 10x as many Americans died in the Vietnam war (58,281 US military KIA), mostly between 1965 and 1971, peaking at 16,899 in '68 alone. There are lots of reasons for this, including the different styles and intensities of fighting, the soldiers used (GWoT was all volunteer after all), improvements in transport and trauma care, and the sheer technological lead that the US held. GWoT was really an example of punching down counterinsurgency, not a real "war" in a lot of ways.
My take the high murder rate among blacks in Chicago is due to Slavery, Jim Crow, followed by decades of racist therefor ineffective policing. That toxic racism is also what's motivating the ICE terrorizing.
My point is everyone has been silent about Chicago's violence for decades, and only now they seem to care because it's not Black people being targeted. It's straight up racism to not care about Black people's welfare but care only when it's other people being endangered.
When I lived in Chicago, no one was silent about Chicago's violence. It was widely acknowledged as one of the city's biggest problems and there was a ton of effort put into stopping it by the government and nonprofits, including grassroots initiatives.
To steelman what you're saying, it's true we lived with it so long that it came to seem normal in a way if you weren't personally affected. But "everyone has been silent" is just not true.
These demonstrations were nominally dedicated to protesting police brutality, not crime, and the policies they advocated for generally had an adverse impact on the crime rate in subsequent years.
When? Where? The instances listed in the article are not compelling.
Here’s an excerpt from the second article:
> According to Homeland Security deputy secretary Tricia McLaughlin, officers were trying to conduct a “targeted traffic stop” of a car registered to a “female illegal alien,” but the male driver “refused to pull the vehicle over.”
> “Law enforcement pursued the vehicle before the assailant sped into a shopping plaza where he and the female passenger fled the vehicle,” according to McLaughlin.
> “They ran into a daycare and attempted to barricade themselves inside the daycare — recklessly endangering the children inside,” she said.
From the third article:
> The agents, who were armed but did not draw their weapons, pushed other people who were looking to intervene, he said.
[…]
> The woman who was arrested is from Colombia and does not have legal immigration status, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said.
If you have information about this issue that isn’t present in the articles linked, feel free to provide it.
ok great, you made it all the way to the second article before you found something you thought you could pull a misleading quote from. Said quote is, appropriately enough, from a woman in the administration whose job is to provide "cover" for her own agency.
and you not-so-gracefully just elide key facts in the same article like:
"the agents were not invited inside the building, did not have a warrant, and were armed with guns while walking into the school with children and teachers present"
&
"the woman [...] is a prekindergarten teacher at the school"
even if you think this is someone who ought to be deported, there are many less violent, less traumatic, and far more dignified ways to go about it. Or would you like to endorse masked men with military-grade equipment storming into daycares to arrest women who work with children there?
> before you found something you thought you could pull a misleading quote from
Do you have any information not presented in the article that suggests that this woman had legal status to reside in the country, and / or that she was not apprehended during a pursuit?
I’m not putting it past an official to lie about these kinds of things, but if this woman had the facts on her side you would usually have heard about it faster.
> the building, did not have a warrant,
Law enforcement officials do not need a warrant to enter private property while they are engaged in the active pursuit of someone suspected of having committed a crime.
> and were armed with guns while walking into the school with children and teachers present"
Per my last comment:
> The agents, who were armed but did not draw their weapons, pushed other people who were looking to intervene, he said.
You’re trying to give a very particular account of these events that the facts are not supporting.
> even if you think this is someone who ought to be deported, there are many less violent, less traumatic, and far more dignified ways to go about it.
I agree, a school isn’t the place for it. So I ask again: Do you have information that would suggest this woman was not being actively pursued by law enforcement officials prior to entering the daycare?
> Or would you like to endorse masked men with military-grade equipment storming into daycares to arrest women who work with children there?
I could (accurately) refer to this woman as an undocumented criminal who barricaded herself in a daycare after being pursued by law enforcement agents, but it’s completely hyperbolic versus just saying “a woman ran into a daycare and was arrested.” There’s nothing to suggest that these officers “stormed” the building like marines kicking the doors in at Fallujah. As was explicitly mentioned in the article (and my previous comment), their guns were never drawn. None of the three articles related to this incident suggest that the officers were masked.
There are multiple videos of ICE leaving an arrest in such a hurry they ram into a passing car that had the right of way. Unmarked cars with no lights follow normal traffic laws. They proceeded to yank the US citizen driving it out of her car and take her with them. She was detained without access to representation and then released without charges. That is unlawful arrest, and probably reckless endangerment. It is claimed that ICE does not need a warrant to enter a place. The fourth amendment says otherwise whatever other laws say. If they enter a place without a warrant seeking evidence, that is unlawful search and seizure. They laughed as they shot multiple people in the head with pepper balls. Some of them were not even near protests, they were just having fun. The training for those rounds explicitly calls out not to do that as it can be lethal. That is assault with a deadly weapon. If it could be proved they had that training, it might be argued as attempted second degree murder.
> It is claimed that ICE does not need a warrant to enter a place.
That was never claimed. What I said was that a warrant is not required when officers are pursuing the suspected perpetrator of a crime. You can feel however you want about it, but that is how the law works.
> They laughed as they shot multiple people in the head with pepper balls.
Are you relating this to the arrest that is being discussed in this thread? There was nothing in the linked articles that suggested this was anywhere near a protest, nor that tear gas was fired.
You might as well say that we should be paying per PR and Issue because, well, that part can’t just be free, you know?
reply