I feel increasingly bad using any CI services. How much heat do they generate?
I think raco pkg new should ask users interactively if they want to generate a workflow file.
There are also duplicate work — the package server also runs tests in packages.
@sorawee curious what you think the alternative is. Running your own servers or not regularly testing code?
As someone working on the largest CI system on the planet, I am certain that the electricity consumption of all CI systems combined is still dwarfed by the collective electricity consumption of cryptocurrency mining systems.
One of the things I thought about is, if all changed files are scrbl (doc change), then don’t run tests. May still compile to make sure it doesn’t error.
But yeah, perhaps this is optimizing (well, reducing heat) at a wrong spot, and it won’t matter.
avoiding compiling dependency packages yourself is an extremely effective way to reduce CI costs
I think avoiding our large quantities of CI when it’s not needed is the right thing here
As with documents or particular pkgs etc
that reminds me: I keep getting emails for CI failures in my fork of the racket repo, is that because there’s custom runners for the repo that my fork can’t use? and can I turn it off somehow without actually adding any commits to my fork.
If a particular workflow only works for source repo and not forks, I think we should add a test against github.repository_owner (see https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/actions/reference/context-and-expression-syntax-for-github-actions#github-context) to stop the run
Totally agree with @samth here that we need to minimize testing, building etc when not necessary. I just didn’t get there yet and won’t in 2020. It will be a 2021 task unless someone steps forward first. I hope to post a “Vision 2021” in racket/racketci and retire Vision 2020 soon.
@notjack yes - the self-hosted runners are assigned to the racket org so you cannot use them, sorry. There should be a way to avoid the error, but I don’t know from the top of my head.
@pocmatos @notjack I’m testing https://github.com/sorawee/racket/tree/disable-fork-self-hosted. If it runs fine, I will submit a PR
@sorawee thanks
I think this failing test should be disabled in this instance: https://github.com/racket/racket/runs/1532254497?check_suite_focus=true
What channel is this workflow supposed to send a notification to?