GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions
GitHub announced it's postponing a controversial billing change for self-hosted Actions after significant community backlash. The original plan to charge per minute for self-hosted runners sparked widespread developer ire. HN users are dissecting GitHub's motives, predicting future price hikes, and discussing migration strategies amidst distrust of corporate maneuvers.
The Lowdown
GitHub has announced a postponement of its previously controversial billing changes for self-hosted GitHub Actions, citing a missed opportunity to gather community feedback. While the planned 39% price reduction for hosted runners will proceed, the move to charge for self-hosted minutes, which drew widespread developer ire, is now under "re-evaluation."
- GitHub initially planned to introduce charges for self-hosted GitHub Actions, billing users per minute even when running on their own infrastructure.
- This announcement was met with significant negative feedback from the developer community, who questioned the rationale and fairness of charging for resources they already host.
- In response, GitHub, through Jared Palmer's X post and official channels, stated they are postponing the self-hosted billing change.
- They acknowledged missing opportunities for community feedback and committed to listening more and re-evaluating their approach.
- The 39% price reduction for GitHub-hosted runners, effective January 1, will still go ahead.
- GitHub emphasized the "real, web-scale costs" associated with Actions, even for self-hosted runners, including control plane, logs, artifacts, and engineering.
This reversal highlights the power of community feedback in influencing major platform decisions and leaves the future pricing strategy for self-hosted Actions uncertain, while many companies and individual developers reassess their CI/CD dependencies.
The Gossip
Postponement Punditry
Many commenters view GitHub's "postponement" not as a genuine cancellation, but as a strategic delay. They speculate GitHub will reintroduce similar charges later, hoping the initial outrage subsides—a tactic some liken to a common corporate maneuver to acclimatize users to unpopular changes. While some believe the intensity of the backlash might make a direct repeat difficult, the prevailing sentiment is that the price increase is merely deferred, and users should remain vigilant.
Self-Hosted Scrutiny & Cost Concerns
The core of the controversy revolves around GitHub's plan to charge per minute for self-hosted runners. Commenters found this "rent-seeking audacity" baffling, arguing that if they provide the infrastructure, GitHub's costs (control plane, logs) are minimal and should not be minute-based. Enterprise users highlighted that for them, the new charges would often exceed their existing hardware costs, making the proposal financially illogical and pushing them towards alternatives.
Exodus or Evaluation: Exploring Alternatives
The proposed changes have prompted many users to actively consider or accelerate migration away from GitHub Actions for CI/CD. Discussions include switching to competitors like GitLab or self-hosted solutions such as Forgejo with Woodpecker CI. Some even mused about building their own minimal CI systems, emphasizing the importance of not being locked into a single vendor and designing CI/CD logic to be platform-agnostic for easier transitions.