Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
WoodpeckerCI's posts Post Back to profile
WoodpeckerCI

We want to have (potential) #user #feedback :)

If you use Github-/Gitea-/Forgejo- #actions , why have you not switched or what would make you potentialy do so?

If you are not in position to decide, just try to asume why :)

For "other" feedback, just comment "below" ;)

Please #retweet so we get more coverage :)

#survey #githubactions #WoodpeckerCI

Anonymous poll

Poll

I'm used to actions syntax
1
50%
I don't want to selvhost
0
0%
Woodpecker confix/syntax is hard
1
50%
Because of all the predefined existing actions
2
100%
2 people voted.
Voting ended 16 November at 12:35.
13 November at 12:13 | Open on floss.social
7 comments
:female_presenting_nipple:

@WoodpeckerCI my main reason is that - iirc - steps in woodpecker run in isolated containers, while actions run the entire job in one. This allows me to build an environment iteratively from reusable components.

Another reason is tighter integration, and that Actions are good enough for my needs.

13 November at 12:19 | Open on trunk.mad-scientist.club
KungFuDiscoMonkey

@WoodpeckerCI Maybe not useful, but I went the other direction. I don’t like the complexity of GitHub actions so never wanted to use Forgejo actions and instead picked Woodpecker due to previous familiarity with drone

13 November at 12:20 | Open on social.tsun.co
Alexey Skobkin

@WoodpeckerCI
For me it's basically backwards. I don't like Actions, more Gitlab-like syntax is what I like.
I still didn't migrate from Drone to WoodpeckerCI, but it's planned:
git.skobk.in/skobkin/docker-st

And the only thing is stopping me right now is a lot of already existing CI pipelines which I need to check first.

// Sorry if the first part wasn't about what you were asking, but the second is.

@WoodpeckerCI
For me it's basically backwards. I don't like Actions, more Gitlab-like syntax is what I like.
I still didn't migrate from Drone to WoodpeckerCI, but it's planned:
git.skobk.in/skobkin/docker-st

And the only thing is stopping me right now is a lot of already existing CI pipelines which I need to check first.

13 November at 12:27 | Open on lor.sh
WoodpeckerCI

@skobkin you might wana have a look at codeberg.org/lafriks/woodpecke

(Through it needs some enhancement on edgecases ...)

EDIT: oh you already know :)

13 November at 12:33 | Open on floss.social
Alexey Skobkin

@WoodpeckerCI
Oh, thank you!
I definitely need to give it a look!

UPD: Hah, I forget that I already added link to it while doing first research 😆

13 November at 12:35 | Open on lor.sh
Wez Furlong :terminal:

@WoodpeckerCI the biggest point of friction for me is that you cannot simply run docker itself in the standard docker based runner setup, making it awkward to embrace something like testcontainers or other ad-hoc scripts that run docker: all such workflows need to be translated and duplicated into equivalent woodpecker plugins/steps. That wouldn't be so bad if woodpecker offered a standalone runner that could run on a dev machine and execute flows locally as part of the developer iteration loop.

13 November at 12:28 | Open on fosstodon.org
Go Up