-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 267
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Port main CI from Azure Pipelines to GitHub Actions #3978
Conversation
deb7a9a
to
01ea63c
Compare
Okay, looks like this (AFAICT, undocumented) approach (from https://stackoverflow.com/a/70516118) would work to replace Azure Pipelines by GH Actions in a pretty smooth way, keeping separate 'includable' YAML files for a bunch of grouped steps. In the UI, such 'action' (sub)steps aren't expanded into the including job, but are nested in the action's step, and manually specified |
786ffdb
to
b5f2554
Compare
af6b7a7
to
1784cb4
Compare
ca32003
to
5e6b401
Compare
…I' release artifacts]
Getting there. Some observations wrt. GitHub Actions vs. Azure Pipelines:
Otherwise, it seems to be mostly the same thing, with some YAML and GUI differences on top of the same (?) agents+image infrastructure, incl. their general slowness (2 (Linux/Windows) / 3 (macOS) CPU cores only) and sporadic failures. While going over the stuff, I've restructured things a bit to fit the new constraints; e.g., Windows is less exotic now and handled in the OS-generic actions. It's also mostly using bash now too, which also fixes previously missing |
This reverts commit 359eeb1.
Conflicts: azure-pipelines.yml
Oh, seems like GH Actions doubled the number of concurrent CI jobs to 20 for the Free plan (https://docs.github.com/en/actions/learn-github-actions/usage-limits-billing-and-administration#usage-limits). I was thinking about moving the supported-LLVM-versions jobs to Azure Pipelines, but that seems superfluous now... |
No description provided.