surf_wreck21

GH actions has been great for us for CI but incredibly opaque when you're trying to diagnose problems. Simple jobs running on the gh hosted runners are fine, but we have a large pool of self-hosted runners running more complex workflows, and whenever things go sideways the answer is usually "did you try restarting all of them?" Hopefully this is helpful, at least someone is investing in making gh actions work for larger organizations.

I agree; maybe when git was new and actually being used in a decentralized fashion some of the more advanced operations were necessary. But with the typical checkout/branch/PR/merge flow from GitHub and others, I rarely need anything but git merge (with squash merging when merging a pr)

Interesting. Having worked at Uber I've been curious why there aren't more of these types of services available to the public.

Github's "require branch to be up to date" setting helps, but doesn't really scale beyond a few engineers in one repo. We tried this where I worked, but after ~6 people, rebasing feature branches got way too annoying.

These are definitely red flags, but it feels like investors (especially at early stages) rarely look at these things. Then in later stages, investors weigh who the early investors are too heavily, and it becomes a big game of emperors new clothes.

It's always been like this for me. I used to respond and engage to build a relationship "just in case", but they churn so fast there's no point.