Skip to content

Conversation

@tstellar
Copy link
Collaborator

@tstellar tstellar commented Feb 7, 2025

Prior workflow runs were not being cancelled when the pull request was closed, and I think this was why. Also, there is no advantage to having the definitions at the job level.

Prior workflow runs were not being cancelled when the pull request
was closed and I think this was why.  Also, there is no advantage
to having the definitions at the job level.
@llvmbot
Copy link
Member

llvmbot commented Feb 7, 2025

@llvm/pr-subscribers-github-workflow

Author: Tom Stellard (tstellar)

Changes

Prior workflow runs were not being cancelled when the pull request was closed, and I think this was why. Also, there is no advantage to having the definitions at the job level.


Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126308.diff

1 Files Affected:

  • (modified) .github/workflows/premerge.yaml (+4-9)
diff --git a/.github/workflows/premerge.yaml b/.github/workflows/premerge.yaml
index b268f1faab98905..178ab191a58be6d 100644
--- a/.github/workflows/premerge.yaml
+++ b/.github/workflows/premerge.yaml
@@ -21,15 +21,16 @@ on:
       - 'main'
       - 'release/**'
 
+concurrency:
+  group: ${{ github.workflow }}-${{ github.event.pull_request.number || github.sha }}
+  cancel-in-progress: true
+
 jobs:
   premerge-checks-linux:
     if: >-
         github.repository_owner == 'llvm' &&
         (github.event_name != 'pull_request' || github.event.action != 'closed')
     runs-on: llvm-premerge-linux-runners
-    concurrency:
-      group: ${{ github.workflow }}-linux-${{ github.event.pull_request.number || github.sha }}
-      cancel-in-progress: true
     steps:
       - name: Checkout LLVM
         uses: actions/checkout@v4
@@ -88,9 +89,6 @@ jobs:
         github.repository_owner == 'llvm' &&
         (github.event_name != 'pull_request' || github.event.action != 'closed')
     runs-on: llvm-premerge-windows-runners
-    concurrency:
-      group: ${{ github.workflow }}-windows-${{ github.event.pull_request.number || github.sha }}
-      cancel-in-progress: true
     defaults:
       run:
         shell: bash
@@ -148,9 +146,6 @@ jobs:
 
   permerge-check-macos:
     runs-on: macos-14
-    concurrency:
-      group: ${{ github.workflow }}-macos-${{ github.event.pull_request.number || github.sha }}
-      cancel-in-progress: true
     if: >-
       github.repository_owner == 'llvm' &&
       (startswith(github.ref_name, 'release/') ||

Copy link
Contributor

@boomanaiden154 boomanaiden154 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks!

@tstellar tstellar merged commit 6e59888 into llvm:main Feb 7, 2025
11 checks passed
@tstellar tstellar added this to the LLVM 20.X Release milestone Feb 7, 2025
@tstellar
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tstellar commented Feb 7, 2025

/cherry-pick 6e59888

@llvmbot
Copy link
Member

llvmbot commented Feb 7, 2025

/pull-request #126310

swift-ci pushed a commit to swiftlang/llvm-project that referenced this pull request Feb 7, 2025
…vm#126308)

Prior workflow runs were not being cancelled when the pull request was
closed, and I think this was why. Also, there is no advantage to having
the definitions at the job level.

(cherry picked from commit 6e59888)
Icohedron pushed a commit to Icohedron/llvm-project that referenced this pull request Feb 11, 2025
…vm#126308)

Prior workflow runs were not being cancelled when the pull request was
closed, and I think this was why. Also, there is no advantage to having
the definitions at the job level.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants