Currently the CI flow only supports GitHub Actions. There should be no reason to not include in tandem GitLab CI, Sourchut builds, Codeberg CI, and other options. While unfortunately all YAML-based, these projects share very similar build manifest files so there is likely room to abstract the common ground. There should be nothing wrong with supporting multiple options either for mirroring purposes.
I believe this is important to support users feeling comfortable choosing non-closed source platforms for their Git forges as well as breaking down GitHub hegemony in the industry; tooling supporting these options is good start. These 'create' project tend to target beginners who may not know a whole lot about these alternatives. Currently the the continuous integration section just says "via GitHub Actions" with no mention of alternatives, or coming-soons.
Currently the CI flow only supports GitHub Actions. There should be no reason to not include in tandem GitLab CI, Sourchut builds, Codeberg CI, and other options. While unfortunately all YAML-based, these projects share very similar build manifest files so there is likely room to abstract the common ground. There should be nothing wrong with supporting multiple options either for mirroring purposes.
I believe this is important to support users feeling comfortable choosing non-closed source platforms for their Git forges as well as breaking down GitHub hegemony in the industry; tooling supporting these options is good start. These 'create' project tend to target beginners who may not know a whole lot about these alternatives. Currently the the continuous integration section just says "via GitHub Actions" with no mention of alternatives, or coming-soons.