Are you moving to Jenkins because of the recent Atlassian license changes?

Not entirely but I think it was the straw that broke the camel's back. Apparently our journey to the cloud will have to wait.

I think there will still be a on premise version of Bamboo going forward, but all the license changes have made my company consider the possibility of moving from Bamboo to something else. That's kind of a shame, because Bamboo works really well for us.

> while others are stuck re-implementing various stages, tasks and blah blah blah. Also an added bonus to this is having the full history of changes to the CI/CD process tracked in git.

Can't those stages, tasks, etc. be specified in the CI specific config files of the repository? Specifying them via an UI seems horrible to me. At least Github actions is all file-specified (except for secrets).

It still requires conversion of config files and formats vs a script that is the same everywhere.

Yes, that's a valid point, and definitely a disadvantage. I was referring to the point that it's not tracked in git.

btw. even gitlab does that with their autodevops, besides that they create gitlab-runner:

https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/master/lib/gitla... https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/master/lib/gitla... https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/cluster-integration/auto-deplo...

I found these fascinating, I mean they still have lots of things in their ci file, but basically the have tons of shell scripts that would work without their gitlab-runner.

Not affiliated with gitlab I just tried to figure out how some of their stuff works to have the same k8s integration than their autodevops offers.

I call mine make.sh.

Now get off my lawn!

Hey! I started with C projects and make scripts and I long for the simplicity of those days! Obtuse web front ends, bunches of build server pools segregated by random capabilities, job queues clogged by competing developer teams and on and on is no fun.

I wouldn't want something called "make.sh" to install tooling on the computer, though, and that is an important step of CI stuff.

Run it in a docker container so that it does the same in your computer and in the CI worker.

make prepare

make build

make test

make release

Working the same waylocally and in jenkins makes things very easy.

What it does is up to the team but make prepare usually pulls some docker image and install dependencies, make build builds something inside the docker image, make test runs test inside it and make release publishes the docker img

Or use a CI/CD tool that natively supports Docker, like Concourse.

Added bonus is that pipelines are defined in YAML rather than web GUI so you can version control the pipelines themselves and not just any build or test suites.

Jenkins pipelines are written in Groovy and you do not need to use the web ui, everything is exposed via its API (i.e: new job creation).

I have heard good things about Concourse, want to give it a try in the future!

> Jenkins pipelines are written in Groovy and you do not need to use the web ui, everything is exposed via its API (i.e: new job creation).

There's several ways you can codify Jenkins pipelines, Groovy being just one of them. But ultimately it's secondary to the main design of Jenkins. I'm not taking anything away from Jenkins as a solution - it has been invaluable over the years. But the way we write, test and deploy software has changed since Jenkins rose in popularity and as such we need to rely on different workflows that utilise different tooling. While Jenkins can be used in that way, I'd sooner use something which was primarily designed to be configured via code and used docker by default rather than something that requires enforcement to follow those best practices. That doesn't necessarily mean Concourse, there's Travis, Circle CI, AWS CodeBuild and a bunch of others that all default to that kind of workflow too, but it does mean I'm unlikely to ever advocate Jenkins again in future jobs.

While you’re not wrong I do use jenkins inside docker and use ansible to configure it, it is a bit different than other more modern tools but works fine.

I have yet to see other tools be as flexible (perforce , git, legacy tools, docker, 100s of workers across datacenters etc.)

I’m yet to see a CI/CD tool that can’t do all of that. What you’re describing there is the bare minimum I’d expect any CI/CD solution to do. I guess there might be some hobby platforms for indie devs but they’re not really the use case we are discussing when talking about Jenkins and Concourse.

I've bounced off concourse several times now. The promise is great, but the setup is absurdly complex and at the end I'm stuck with CI in Docker containers (I usually want 1 or more VMs)

Concourse can run as many VMs as you want. The point is those jobs get pushed to a farm of workers (typically VMs) and then docker is used so you have an ephemeral and repeatable build environment. It is absurdly complex to set up though. I feel there is a gap in the market for a Concourse-like solution but simplified immensely.