ec2-github-runner VS pipeline

Introduce a Pre Job for Allocate Runners: Allocate Runners is the first executed job that allocates Runners and creates global Version markers for the following Job. For instance, if we choose to use EC2, Allocate Runners Job will allocate EC2 instances of the corresponding platform through the EC2 API (implemented by the ec2-github-runner Action). In the future, we plan to incorporate more sophisticated selection algorithms to allocate Runners, with the aim of optimizing the costs of Runner allocation.

This would be a huge improvement to control the cost while still being able to scale the number of runners: https://github.com/machulav/ec2-github-runner

Tekton

Tekton is an open-source framework for creating efficient CI/CD systems. This empowers developers to seamlessly construct, test, and deploy applications across various cloud environments and on-premise setups.

Despite other alternatives like Circle CI, Travis CI, GitLab CI or even self-hosted options using open-source projects like Tekton or Argo Workflow, the reason for choosing GitHub Actions was straightforward: GitHub Actions, in conjunction with the GitHub ecosystem, offers a user-friendly experience and access to a rich software marketplace.

[2]: https://github.com/tektoncd/pipeline/issues/5507#issuecommen...

Drone, or Tekton, Argo Workflows if you’re on k8s

If you want a step up, I would recommend trying out Tekton Pipelines. It’s a very popular ci tool, and it runs on Kubernetes. Yes, this would involve setting up a Kubernetes cluster but please don’t run for the hills! You can setup a Kubernetes cluster and install Tekton on top of it with minimal setup using minikube (see here. This would be a great joint exercise as it will give you a bit of Kubernetes understanding alongside it, and the mechanisms of Tekton are a little trickier than GitHub actions imo. It’s all much the same though.

I've recently found this quote by Kelsey Hightower:

"I'm convinced the majority of people managing infrastructure just want a PaaS. The only requirement: it has to be built by them."

Source: https://twitter.com/kelseyhightower/status/85193508753294540...

In the last few weeks, I've experimented a bit with Flux (https://fluxcd.io/), Tekton (https://tekton.dev/) and Cloud Native Buildpacks (https://buildpacks.io/) on how to provide K8s powered git push deployments without using a dedicated CI/CD server.

My project is still in early alpha stage and just a proof of concept :-) My vision is to expand it into an Open Source PaaS in the future.

Do you think the above quote is true? What does an open source PaaS need to be like in order to be accepted by software developers?

Some other projects have been discontinued in the past (like Flynn or Deis) or were created before the Kubernetes era.

Is it the right direction to provide a Heroku like solution based on K8s or is it better to provide an Open Source Infrastructure as Code library with building blocks to avoid everything from scratch?