Skip to content
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

build: gha: actions/checkout: don't clean working copy & fetch full history from git #231

Closed

Conversation

rpardini
Copy link
Contributor

build: gha: actions/checkout: don't clean working copy & fetch full history from git

  • instead of cleaning the whole working copy, clean out just the out and dist dirs
  • this allows the cache/ dir to survive on-disk on self-hosted runners
  • bonus: using fetch-depth: 0 allows for much faster git fetch times on self-hosted runners over time
  • this is done only for the jobs that can run in self-hosted runners (not prep/release jobs)

Signed-off-by: Ricardo Pardini [email protected]

@rpardini
Copy link
Contributor Author

Altenative to #230

@jacobweinstock
Copy link
Member

Thanks for this @rpardini , both this a #230 are very reasonable. I think i'm more in favor of #230. Let's use that one and see how it goes. Thanks for looking into this!

…istory from git

- instead of cleaning the whole working copy, clean out just the `out` and `dist` dirs
- this allows the `cache/` dir to survive on-disk on self-hosted runners
- bonus: using `fetch-depth: 0` allows for much faster `git fetch` times on self-hosted runners over time
- this is done only for the jobs that can run in self-hosted runners (not prep/release jobs)

Signed-off-by: Ricardo Pardini <[email protected]>
@rpardini rpardini force-pushed the preserve-cache-dir-across-CI-runs branch from 08f2e8e to dbf4c63 Compare June 27, 2024 12:17
@rpardini
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey @jacobweinstock I haven't followed up, but it looks to me #230 was good enough? If so I'll close this....

@jacobweinstock
Copy link
Member

Hey @jacobweinstock I haven't followed up, but it looks to me #230 was good enough? If so I'll close this....

Hey @rpardini. Yeah, we should be good for now, thanks!

@rpardini rpardini closed this Jun 28, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants