@jeremydmiller Somewhere along the line the meaning of CI changed for many teams to “I dunno, it sort of works in my IDE, I'll let GitHub Actions figure out if it's right or not” ... and I hate it. CI was never supposed to be that, it's just team laziness. CI was always "run precisely the same checks on a neutral environment that I've already run on my machine; with all the latest changes currently on (or about to be) on the main branch; and do that frequently”. It was only supposed to fail if something had been either (a) missed in the environment dependencies, (b) a semantic conflict in two commits merged since the last CI run, (c) an external failure.

Of course CI as an idea “is failing” if people are centralizing the checks of all their barely baked code, and they're generating 100 times as many LoCs as they were (some of which might even be useful).

Anyway, I know you know all this.