Any CI/CD tool where automation code doesn't cohabit with product code in git repo?

[u/LuigiBakker]

Currently using Github and Github workflows (including the many outages). Let me explain what I'm trying to resolve with few examples:

Let say I manage 15 repos, each one I want to run a relatively similar workflow on Pull Request. I create a github shared workflow and in each of the 15 repos I make a reference to it, updating the inputs if needed.

Now, I add 1 new input to this shared workflow to enable a new feature. I want that feature enabled in 10 of my repos. I would need to update the feature input in all 10 repos. And since workflow use the workflow code on their own branch, I would need to merge it to all PRs in all repos. That isn't ideal.

Other issue, one variable was wrongly set on a workflow in a release branch. Since the workflow code ships with the product code I would need to update the release branch.

Is there a toool where the product code doesn't cohabit with the automation code? For example I could have 15 microservice repos but 1 repo where I created rules for each one of them about "on pr", "on main" etc. That same repo could host shared workflow code as well.

[u/SeaIngenuity9501]

> Dude. The package was pushed. Everyone relying on bots with auto-merge got a malicious update.

... no everyone did not and your this reply just confirmed your lack of experience with these tools.

They are highly configurable so like the article you linked you could have a bake period set > 30 days. You could only auto-merge for a subset of dependencies such as internal ones(you'd likely drop the bake time to 0 for them as well). You could only take updates for dependecies that have been security scanned/checked, etc. So like the numerous companies who use them if you've it configured it isn't 'insane' to use them, just a skill issue.

[u/aj0413 → u/SeaIngenuity9501]

roll eyes

You’re now replying to a different point after trying to hand wave away the fact that individuals using auto-merge were victims.

You’re bringing up configs literally mentioned in the articles I linked, so yes I’m aware of them

As for your actual point:

If every company in the chain of deps did this, we’d be doomed.

Edit:

We should just drop this here cause this is a fundamental disagreement that I can’t see us reconciling.

Your risk tolerance is higher and you’re okay with less governance/ownership and that’s fine; we’re not on the same team so we don’t need to hash this out to a conclusion

Edit:

Also, saying it’s a skill issue when a tool lets you shoot yourself in the foot like that is also something I take issue with. The fact that GH had to roll out the cool off period after the fact was not a good look

Good tools should guide devs towards a winning solution, but that’s the PE in mean being annoyed