Context
We currently use GitHub Actions with some runners hosted on Depot. Depot has since launched a dedicated CI product, and there are other alternatives worth exploring (GitLab Runners, self-hosted infrastructure). Worth doing a structured evaluation before the next renewal cycle.
Goal
Determine whether an alternative CI platform or runner setup could reduce cost, improve speed, or both — without sacrificing coverage or developer experience.
Scope / ideas
- Depot CI — we already use Depot for runners; evaluate their full CI product for tighter integration and potential cost savings
- GitLab Runners — evaluate as a runner backend (can be used with GitHub via mirroring or as a full migration path)
- Self-hosted runners — cost model analysis for hosting our own (e.g. on spare capacity, spot instances)
- Hybrid approach — keep GitHub Actions as orchestrator but swap runner backends
- Compare on: cost, cold-start latency, caching, maintenance burden, and migration effort
Related to #51012 and #51027 but a bit more big picture (if we want to go that route)
Context
We currently use GitHub Actions with some runners hosted on Depot. Depot has since launched a dedicated CI product, and there are other alternatives worth exploring (GitLab Runners, self-hosted infrastructure). Worth doing a structured evaluation before the next renewal cycle.
Goal
Determine whether an alternative CI platform or runner setup could reduce cost, improve speed, or both — without sacrificing coverage or developer experience.
Scope / ideas
Related to #51012 and #51027 but a bit more big picture (if we want to go that route)