posit-dev / posit-dev/images-shared
🏗️ Migrate internal builders to self-hosted runners
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 2
- Forks
- 0
- Avg merge
- 4d 13h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 22
Description
Background
Companion effort to the ECR migration epic — investigating moving our internal image builders off their current runners onto self-hosted infrastructure (EKS and/or self-hosted GitHub Actions runners), to gain more control over build capacity and rate limits, and to support remote builds with better image data export options.
Goals
- Understand feasibility/cost of EKS-hosted self-hosted builders for remote builds
- Understand feasibility/cost of self-hosted GitHub Actions runners for image builds
Acceptance Criteria
- Spike findings documented with a recommendation (EKS vs. self-hosted GH Actions runners vs. status quo)
External Dependencies and Blockers
Notes
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
No files or tests are named. Start by comparing the feasibility and cost of EKS-hosted self-hosted builders with self-hosted GitHub Actions runners for remote image builds, including image data export options and capacity or rate-limit implications. Done means the spike findings are documented with a recommendation among EKS, self-hosted GitHub Actions runners, and the status quo.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- aws, github-actions, kubernetes
- Domain
- build-system, ci-cd, cloud, devops, infrastructure
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100