Conversation
|
Cygwin-wise, the 4 merged workflows completed 69m, 76m, 79m, and 84m, thus confirming that merging should be OK. With the removal of the CI summary:
Out of 59 workflows 4 failed with 3 genuine issues and 1 CI issue. |
shym
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM!
And it’s really nice to be able to go back to a single job for those workflows, juggling with the timeout was unnecessarily complex.
Little suggestion: if we drop all that two-job logic on the .yml side, we might just as well as drop the skipnextjob lines on the dune side: shym@e7d04de
What do you think?
76094f8 to
633bf32
Compare
|
I updated the PR according to my suggestion :-) |
|
Of the 3 Cygwin runs 3 completed in 80m, 87m, 127m and 1 timed out after 6h because of a deadlock. CI summary:
Out of 59 workflows 13 failed, with 10 triggering genuine errors, 1 false alarm, and 2 internal CI failures |
|
CI summary for merge to
Out of 36 workflows 5 failed with 3 genuine issues and 2 CI setup-related failures |
This PR merges the two GitHub actions workflow parts for Cygwin into a single one.
Initially, the split was done out of necessity in #305 and #313 as the Cygwin port initially was too slow to complete within the 6h timeout!
Since then we have seen general OCaml (GC) improvements, meaning that the 2-part Cygwin CI workflow would complete in about 2x45m, and thus opening up for a workflow merge incl. saving time on storing and restoring the state.
Finally I offer two data points from a trial run of this branch:
5.1.1~rc1completed in 1h16mtrunkcompleted in 1h11m