GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

Meaning of “postponement” and trust in Microsoft/GitHub

• Many commenters interpret “postponing” as “will still happen later,” not a real reversal.
• Some see this as part of a pattern: float an extreme change, absorb backlash, then return with a softened but still worse deal once emotions cool.
• Several state they will continue or accelerate migration away from GitHub/Actions regardless of the delay; trust is already damaged.

Pricing model, “real costs,” and fairness

• Commenters acknowledge GitHub does incur costs for the Actions control plane (scheduling, logs, artifacts, maintenance).
• There is strong objection to per‑minute billing for self‑hosted runners, since compute is paid by the customer; many suggest billing per workflow, per triggered job, or per GB of logs/artifacts instead.
• Some argue charging for self‑hosted is reasonable and common in CI SaaS; others call it “rent‑seeking,” especially when minutes are counted identically to hosted runners.
• GitHub’s cited large OSS subsidy (billions of free minutes) is noted; some speculate the dollar figure is based on list price, not actual cost.

Impact on enterprises and migration considerations

• Multiple reports of large internal chats “lighting up,” suggesting strong enterprise concern.
• Commenters note that teams using self‑hosted runners often can’t move to GitHub‑hosted runners for security or performance reasons, so new fees hit them hardest.
• Several organizations have already switched or are actively evaluating GitLab, Forgejo/Gitea + Woodpecker, or bespoke CI systems.
• Others argue most companies will ultimately pay because engineering time to replatform CI is expensive.

Vendor lock‑in, CI architecture, and best practices

• Many see this as a reminder that CI/CD should be decoupled from any single platform (cloud/host‑agnostic pipelines, custom scripts, post‑receive hooks).
• Best practice repeated: keep most CI logic in portable scripts that can run locally, with minimal provider‑specific YAML.
• Some note Actions feels under‑invested and flaky already, undermining the idea of paying extra for it.

Communication, UX, and broader Microsoft behavior

• Frustration that initial comms appeared on X first; others point to GitHub discussions and resource pages as more canonical.
• Commenters link this episode to broader dissatisfaction with Microsoft choices (Windows 11, Copilot), reinforcing a sense that user feedback is often reactive, not proactive.