Bitbucket Pipes(bitbucket.org) |
Bitbucket Pipes(bitbucket.org) |
Thanks but no thank you, meanwhile GitLab offers 2000 mins/mo
- Azure pipelines offers 1,800 minutes a month
- Google Cloud Build offers 120 minutes a day
- CircleCI offers 1000 minutes a month
Weird that they wouldn't even try to compete with these.
Also aren't free tier customers the most costily in terms of support, etc?
50 mins seems perfect for a trial to see if you want to purchase it.
Concourse refers to this as a "get step"[1] or a "put step", which calls a pre-defined script inside the container with a custom set of parameters. The "put step" is used when you expect side effects, while a "get step" is used to check status on some resource and trigger jobs.
In general it makes the CI/CD system easily composable and clean. Concourse manages this very well and while I haven't used Bitbucket Pipes I suspect it to be a good experience as well.
[0] https://concourse-ci.org/resources.html [1] https://concourse-ci.org/implementing-resources.html
Why does the bitbucket not saas implementation still not use the same API :|
CI/CD presents a significant risk and it's not like CI/CD vendors have never had a security incident. Not to mention the unpublished access a member of their staff may have to interfer with your runners or pull your access tokens/secrets.
If an org is more comfortable having their own people assume this risk, I think the gitlab helm chart is better solution. At the same time, a small org, without the resources to properly look after this in-house, should use a SaaS vendor.
For example, there's a two year old open "high priority" ticket for adding the ability to restrict pushes to branch patterns, yet still allow new branches to be created, for the saas product. The self-hosted version has apparently had this feature before the ticket was opened.
I think GitHub Actions is picking up because of how big GitHub is.
And that's a good thing. I don't want to be locked into providers.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlassian
[2]:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/australia/encryptio...
That's not quite accurate. There is now a legal mechanism that allows certain government agencies to force you to add a backdoor to your product. But until you are given a notice you don't need to do anything, and you can provide aggregated statistics to your users of how many requests you've been given. There are also some weasel-word caveats (the backdoor cannot be a "systemic vulnerability" but there has been much disagreement about whether this limitation actually means anything -- in my view it's basically meaningless within the context of a single company's product).
There is currently a review process open for the TOLA Act that closes in April[1], so any fellow Australians on HN should submit their comments -- there are only 65 submissions so far (and only 27 are by individuals).
[1]: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joi...