<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: ThierryAbalea</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ThierryAbalea</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2026 19:21:50 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=ThierryAbalea" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by ThierryAbalea in "Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>My take as a cofounder of Shipfox, a company working on alternative GitHub Actions runners (same space as Depot, Blacksmith, Namespace).
The price update itself wasn't very surprising. GitHub-hosted runners historically carried a significant premium given the underlying hardware, which isn't particularly well suited for CI workloads that are often CPU-intensive. Lowering prices there makes sense and better reflects real usage.
Pricing self-hosted runners also feels logical from GitHub's perspective. Until now, GitHub Actions generated little direct revenue from self-hosted usage, despite still providing orchestration, Actions Marketplace, etc. Given how widely self-hosting is used, it's hard to imagine that remaining free forever.
For users of GitHub-hosted runners, this is clearly good news. For teams running self-hosted runners, the impact can be noticeable. For example, if your infrastructure previously achieved a per-minute cost about half of GitHub's hosted 2 vCPU rate (a conservative assumption), adding a $0.002/min fee effectively moves the total from ~$0.004 to ~$0.006 per minute, roughly a 50% increase. In setups that were much cheaper than hosted runners, the relative increase is even higher.
That said, most teams don't self-host purely to save money. Performance, hardware control, and security or compliance requirements are usually the main drivers. This change doesn't remove those benefits, but it does change the cost equation and likely forces a reassessment.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 18:45:57 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46292554</link><dc:creator>ThierryAbalea</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46292554</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46292554</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by ThierryAbalea in "Show HN: StepKit, an open and cross-platform durable execution standard"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Durable execution feels underrated. It lines up almost exactly with a Process Manager: track state, pick the next step, orchestrate calls, no hand-rolled state machines or persistence glue. You can hack a demo in a few hours, but getting the guarantees right in production is a totally different game, so seeing an OSS implementation from people who have actually done this before is interesting</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2025 18:21:49 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46048884</link><dc:creator>ThierryAbalea</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46048884</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46048884</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by ThierryAbalea in "Modern CI is too complex and misdirected (2021)"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I agree with the author that CI and build systems are really trying to solve the same core problem: efficient execution of a dependency graph. And I share the view that modern CI stacks often lack the solid foundations that tools like Bazel, Gradle, or Nx bring to build systems.<p>Where I differ a bit is on the "two DAGs" criticism. In practice the granularity isn’t the same: the build system encodes how to compile and test, while the CI level is more about orchestration, cloning the repo, invoking the build system, publishing artifacts. That separation is useful, though we do lose the benefits of a single unified DAG for efficiency and troubleshooting.<p>The bigger pain points I hear from developers are less about abstractions and more about day-to-day experience: slow performance, flakiness, lack of visibility, and painful troubleshooting. For example, GitHub Actions doesn’t let you test or debug pipelines locally, you have to push every change to the remote. The hosted runners are also underpowered, and while self-hosting sounds attractive, it quickly becomes a time sink to manage reliably at scale.<p>This frustration is what led me to start working on Shipfox.io. Not a new CI platform, but an attempt to fix these issues on top of GitHub Actions. We’re focused on faster runners and better visibility, aggregating CI logs, test logs, CPU and memory profiles to make failures and performance problems easier to debug.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:40:47 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44964845</link><dc:creator>ThierryAbalea</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44964845</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44964845</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by ThierryAbalea in "GitHub Copilot Coding Agent"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The announcement <a href="https://github.blog/news-insights/product-news/github-copilot-meet-the-new-coding-agent/" rel="nofollow">https://github.blog/news-insights/product-news/github-copilo...</a> seems to position GitHub Actions as a core part of the Copilot coding agent’s architecture.
From what I understand in the documentation and your comment, GitHub Actions is triggered later in the flow, mainly for security reasons.
Just to clarify, is GitHub Actions also used in the development environment of the agent, or only after the code is generated and pushed?</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 10:35:27 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44039946</link><dc:creator>ThierryAbalea</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44039946</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44039946</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by ThierryAbalea in "Show HN: Fed up with compliance tools? Help us make SOC-2 OSS"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>we used Probo at Shipfox.io to get through SOC 2. It saved us a ton of time. The team knows their stuff and was super helpful when we needed support</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2025 22:51:33 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42731917</link><dc:creator>ThierryAbalea</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42731917</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42731917</guid></item></channel></rss>