Comment by chubot

BTW if you follow the philosophy of using bash as your CI so it runs locally (mentioned by several people in this thread), then you can use the same CI logic on sourcehut and Github Actions.

Both of them provide VMs where you can run anything, and bash is of course there on every image.

We do that for https://oils.pub/

sourcehut yaml: https://github.com/oils-for-unix/oils/tree/master/.builds

github yaml: https://github.com/oils-for-unix/oils/tree/master/.github/wo...

They both call the same shell. The differences are:

* We use Github's API to merge on green; right now we don't have the same for sourcehut (since Github is the primary repo)

* Github Actions provides way more resources. They are kind of "locking projects in" by being free.

This post on NixOS gives a hint of htat

https://blog.erethon.com/blog/2025/07/31/how-nixos-is-built/

The monthly cost for all the actions in July of 2025 came out to a bit over 14500 USD which GitHub covers in its entirety.

So I think many projects are gradually sucked in to Github because it is indeed quite generous (including us, which annoys me -- we run more tasks on Github than sourcehut, even though in theory we could run all on sourcehut)

---

BUT I think it is a good idea to gradually consolidate your logic into shell, so you can move off Github in the future. Open source projects tend to last longer than cloud services.

This already happened to us -- we started using Travis CI in 2018 or so, and by 2021, it was acquired and the free tier was removed