[danpalmer]

I've used many of the CI systems that the author has here, and I've done a lot of CircleCI and GitHub Actions, and I don't come to quite the same conclusions. One caveat though, I haven't used Buildkite, which the author seems to recommend.

Over the years CI tools have gone from specialist to generalist. Jenkins was originally very good at building Java projects and not much else, Travis had explicit steps for Rails projects, CircleCI was similarly like this back in the day.

This was a dead end. CI is not special. We realised as a community that in fact CI jobs were varied, that encoding knowledge of the web framework or even language into the CI system was a bad idea, and CI systems became _general workflow orchestrators_, with some logging and pass/fail UI slapped on top. This was a good thing!

I orchestrated a move off CircleCI 2 to GitHub Actions, precisely because CircleCI botched the migration from the specialist to generalist model, and we were unable to express a performant and correct CI system in their model at the time. We could express it with GHA.

GHA is not without its faults by any stretch, but... the log browser? So what, just download the file, at least the CI works. The YAML? So it's not-quite-yaml, they weren't the first or last to put additional semantics on a config format, all CI systems have idiosyncrasies. Plugins being Docker images? Maybe heavyweight, but honestly this isn't a bad UX.

What does matter? Owning your compute? Yeah! This is an important one, but you can do that on all the major CI systems, it's not a differentiator. Dynamic pipelines? That's really neat, and a good reason to pick Buildkite.

My takeaway from my experience with these platforms is that Actions is _pretty good_ in the ways that truly matter, and not a problem in most other ways. If I were starting a company I'd probably choose Buildkite, sure, but for my open source projects, Actions is good.

[dijit]

I actually have the opposite opinion.

In game development we care a lot about build systems- and annoyingly, we have vanishingly few companies coming to throw money at our problems.

The few that do, charge a kings ransom (Incredibuild). Our build times are pretty long, and minimising them is ideal.

If, then, your build system does not understand your build-graph then you’re waiting even longer for builds or you’re keeping around incremental state and dirty workspaces (which introduces transient bugs, as now the compiler has to do the hard job of incrementally building anyway).

So our build systems need to be acutely aware of the intricacies of how the game is built (leading to things like UnrealEngine Horde and UBA).

If we used a “general purpose” approach we’d be waiting in some cases over a day for a build, even with crazy good hardware.

[maccard]

Also game dev here - I disagree with your take. Our _build tools_ need to be hyper aware but our CI systems absolutely do not and would be better served as general purpose. What good is Horde when you need to deploy your already packaged game to steam via steamcmd, or when you need to update a remote config file for a content hotfix. Horde used BuildGraph meaning you need a full engine sync’ed node to run curl -X POST whatever.com

Game dev has a serious case of NIH - sometimes for good reasons but in lots of cases it’s because things have been set up in a way that makes changing that impractical. Using UBA as an example - FastBuild, Incredibuild, SNDBS Sccache all exist as either caching or distribution systems. Compiling a game engine isn’t much different to compiling a web browser (which ninja was written for).

I’ve worked at two game studios where we’ve used general purpose CI systems and been able to push out builds in < 15 minutes. Horde and UBA exist to handle how epic are doing things internally, rather than as an inherent requirement on how to use the tools effectively. If you don’t have the same constraints as developing Unreal Engine (and Fortnite) then you don’t have the same needs.

(I worked for epic when horde came online, but don’t any more).

[frankharrison]

If you're at a games studio that values build-times, value that. I worked at a very good SRE-mindset studio and missed it, deeply, after I left. Back then I expected everyone to think and care about such things and have spent many, many hours advocating for best-in-class, more efficient, cheaper development practices.

WRT github actions... I agree with OOP, they leave much to be desired, esp when working on high-velocity work. My ci/cd runs locally first and then GHA is (slower) verification, low-noise, step.

[SOLAR_FIELDS]

Actions is many things. It’s an event dispatcher, an orchestrator, an execution engine and runtime, an artifact registry and caching system, a workflow modeler, a marketplace, and a secrets manager. And I didn’t even list all of the things Actions is. It’s better at some of those things and not others.

The systems I like to design that use GHA usually only use the good parts. GitHub is a fine events dispatcher, for instance, but a very bad workflow orchestrator. So delegate that to a system that is good at that instead

[kyleee]

Has anyone done the “GitHub Actions: The Good Parts” book yet?

[dataflow]

> but... the log browser? So what, just download the file, at least the CI works.

They answer your "so what" quite directly:

>> Build logs look like terminal output, because they are terminal output. ANSI colors work. Your test framework’s fancy formatting comes through intact. You’re not squinting at a web UI that has eaten your escape codes and rendered them as mojibake. This sounds minor. It is not minor. You are reading build logs dozens of times a day. The experience of reading them matters in the way that a comfortable chair matters. You only notice how much it matters after you’ve been sitting in a bad one for six hours and your back has filed a formal complaint.

Having to look mentally ignore ANSI escape codes in raw logs (let alone being unable to unable to search for text through them) is annoying as hell, to put it mildly.

[usr1106]

Doesn't `less -R` solve the ANSI escape problem?

[dataflow]

No, it's insane to have to rely on that workaround. Having to download raw logs, bring up a terminal, go to that directory, and type less -R, is already a massive pain. All of that and you don't even get back a basic scrollbar.

And how do you expect people to even know about this workaround, and how to search for text with it? It's not like the GitHub UI even tells you. Not everyone is a Linux pro.

Nobody is saying it's impossible to get past the ANSI escape codes. People eventually figure out ways to do it. The claim is how much of your time do you want to lose to friction in that process, which you have to repeated frequently. It's insane for it to be this hard.

[bayindirh]

> Having to look mentally ignore ANSI escape codes in raw logs (let alone being unable to unable to search for text through them) is annoying as hell, to put it mildly.

You have a tool here, which is noted elsewhere: it's "less --raw". Also there's another tool which analyzes your logs and color codes them: "lnav".

lnav is incredibly powerful and helps understanding what's happening, when, where. It can also tail logs. Recommended usage is "your_command 2>&1 | lnav -t".

[estimator7292]

> Owning your compute? Yeah! This is an important one, but you can do that on all the major CI systems

Except for GitHub charging you monthly to run your own CI jobs on your own hardware.

[apothegm]

I was a very early customer of BuildKite. It’s lovely, very ergonomic, and gives you so much control.