Specifically:
"any activity that places a burden on our servers, where that burden is disproportionate to the benefits provided to users (for example, don't use Actions as a content delivery network or as part of a serverless application, but a low benefit Action could be ok if it’s also low burden); or"
Hate to be sour grapes here, but this is nothing new. Every project that uses actions to publish a package, create a release commit and/or tag, and commit that to the repo is doing pretty much the same thing.
Unfortunately projects like will probably force GH to remove Actions for free private repos and limit it for public repos in some way, like enabling it only for approved projects. Please stop abusing this feature.
Is this anything besides a static website that could be hosted on S3 just as well? Seems like you're just using Actions to compile the static assets, which is probably not as good as doing it locally.
12 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 39.1 ms ] threadTake a look:
https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-additio...
Specifically: "any activity that places a burden on our servers, where that burden is disproportionate to the benefits provided to users (for example, don't use Actions as a content delivery network or as part of a serverless application, but a low benefit Action could be ok if it’s also low burden); or"
This is not the same as running locally.