| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Heads Up: cirrus-ci is shutting down June 1st |
| Date: | 2026-04-13 14:34:15 |
| Message-ID: | 6917DA20-3050-4E6F-9AEF-D66AC4F89999@justatheory.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
I’ve started thinking about moving away from GitHub actions myself, and was wondering what else was out there that fulfills a bunch of these needs. Feedback I got and some brief research turned up Woodpecker CI[0]
[0]: https://woodpecker-ci.org/
On Apr 13, 2026, at 04:34, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> These probably go together.
>
> I think it's important that you can self-host. Even with cirrus-ci I actually wished there was an easy way to run the jobs locally. I don't know how often I'd really do it, but especially developing and testing the ci yaml files is painful when you can't run it locally.
While Woodpecker promotes its Docker images, esp. for integration with Codeberg and other Forgejo services, it’s a Go app so compiles for quite a lot of platforms, and has a “local mode” in which, from what I understand, you can run it on whatever trusted hardware you’d like.
So if we have, say, a Mac Mini plus an arm and amd system capable of virtualizing Linux, BSD, etc., perhaps we’d be able to get the coverage we need and host the results in a self-hosted Woodpecker service?
As I say, I’ve just started to kind of cast about for alternatives, so don’t know a lot about it myself, but on the surface it looks promising.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2026-04-13 14:55:10 | Re: Return pg_control from pg_backup_stop(). |
| Previous Message | Daniil Davydov | 2026-04-13 14:18:07 | Re: Fix bug with accessing to temporary tables of other sessions |