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

GitHub Actions: Switch to GitHub-hosted runners #4280

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 23, 2024

Conversation

uncleDecart
Copy link
Member

Latest documentation on GitHub shows that their
runners have same resources as BuildJet. Why not
use free stuff?

Signed-off-by: Pavel Abramov <[email protected]>
@@ -23,9 +23,9 @@ jobs:
include:
- os: buildjet-4vcpu-ubuntu-2204-arm
arch: arm64
- os: buildjet-4vcpu-ubuntu-2004
- os: ubuntu-20.04
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we use both?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

sure

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

But here you switch from buildjet to a regular one?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So in this particular case it won't be that easy, because we're running matrix and we have runs-on parameter, and we have both amd64 and arm arch to avoid cross-compiling. We can add a second option as fallback in runs-on parameter, but it'll mess up arm runner. I think it makes sense to switch to GH-hosted runners here, since it'll free up buildjet runners a bit

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ok, let's try

@OhmSpectator
Copy link
Member

Are we ok to merge?

@OhmSpectator OhmSpectator merged commit 55e539d into lf-edge:master Sep 23, 2024
38 checks passed
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