Skip to content

ci: Explicitly build for oldest and newest compliers#546

Merged
ppannuto merged 4 commits intomasterfrom
ci-support-range
Jul 30, 2025
Merged

ci: Explicitly build for oldest and newest compliers#546
ppannuto merged 4 commits intomasterfrom
ci-support-range

Conversation

@ppannuto
Copy link
Member

@ppannuto ppannuto commented Jul 24, 2025

This splits the "build" CI rule into two: build-latest runs on the newest available OS image with the newest available copmilers, build-legacy runs on the oldest active LTS release and uses the 'default' cross compiler toolchains from that LTS.

There's also two little general CI cleanups tacked on the end that clean up the logs some.

@ppannuto ppannuto force-pushed the ci-support-range branch 2 times, most recently from 16d9ffd to da29453 Compare July 24, 2025 19:43
@ppannuto ppannuto marked this pull request as ready for review July 24, 2025 20:09
brghena
brghena previously approved these changes Jul 25, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@brghena brghena left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is fantastic. Definitely good to check both new and old compilers. Thanks!!

bradjc
bradjc previously approved these changes Jul 29, 2025
@bradjc bradjc enabled auto-merge July 29, 2025 15:40
@lschuermann
Copy link
Member

Any reason not to use the build-matrix feature on GitHub actions to consolidate those two steps? I think testing across different software versions is the intended use case for that.

@ppannuto
Copy link
Member Author

Any reason not to use the build-matrix feature on GitHub actions to consolidate those two steps? I think testing across different software versions is the intended use case for that.

Ignorance of how to better use/configure GitHub actions? :)

It's also different setup/install steps on the different OSes, so it seemed simpler to just have separate jobs, but I have no feelings one way or another on it.

@ppannuto ppannuto dismissed stale reviews from bradjc and brghena via 70b1d73 July 29, 2025 22:53
@ppannuto
Copy link
Member Author

Updated to use the build matrix

@lschuermann
Copy link
Member

Updated to use the build matrix

Awesome, thanks! Yeah, it's a bit more duplication than I anticipated still (because the setup is pretty different), but it'll be nice that we're less likely to have these two go out of sync.

@lschuermann lschuermann disabled auto-merge July 30, 2025 02:46
@lschuermann lschuermann enabled auto-merge July 30, 2025 02:46
@lschuermann
Copy link
Member

I ported the legacy branch protection rules of this repo into a ruleset, and changed the required status checks, so this should now be able to move into the merge queue. We might need to close and re-open the PR though...

image

auto-merge was automatically disabled July 30, 2025 02:51

Pull request was closed

@lschuermann lschuermann reopened this Jul 30, 2025
@lschuermann lschuermann enabled auto-merge July 30, 2025 02:52
@ppannuto
Copy link
Member Author

I think your third check pointed to the wrong thing (the ci-build-latest job which doesn't exist now, rather than the ci-build (ubuntu-latest) matrix entry). I think I fixed it:
image

@ppannuto ppannuto disabled auto-merge July 30, 2025 20:39
@ppannuto ppannuto added this pull request to the merge queue Jul 30, 2025
Merged via the queue into master with commit b8e46b4 Jul 30, 2025
9 checks passed
@ppannuto ppannuto deleted the ci-support-range branch July 30, 2025 20:49
@lschuermann
Copy link
Member

@ppannuto Right, missed that! Third time's the charm.

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.

4 participants