-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33.1k
Remove Cirrus macOS runners from CI #139799
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
Conversation
include: | ||
# Use the same runs-on configuration as build-macos and build-ubuntu. | ||
- arch: aarch64 | ||
runs-on: ${{ github.repository_owner == 'python' && 'ghcr.io/cirruslabs/macos-runner:sonoma' || 'macos-14' }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
pls review
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, this is correct.
Before, this was essentially a YAML ternary.
It was checking if the CI was running under the python
org, and if so, would use the Cirrus runners.
If not, the CI is running on someone's fork, where they don't have access to Cirrus, so would fall back to macos-14
.
But now, we want to use macos-14
for everyone.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks, just some comments cleanup.
include: | ||
# Use the same runs-on configuration as build-macos and build-ubuntu. | ||
- arch: aarch64 | ||
runs-on: ${{ github.repository_owner == 'python' && 'ghcr.io/cirruslabs/macos-runner:sonoma' || 'macos-14' }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, this is correct.
Before, this was essentially a YAML ternary.
It was checking if the CI was running under the python
org, and if so, would use the Cirrus runners.
If not, the CI is running on someone's fork, where they don't have access to Cirrus, so would fall back to macos-14
.
But now, we want to use macos-14
for everyone.
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
Some extra background for this. The ![]() The slowest of these took just under six hours: ![]() Looking at the slowest: ![]() We can see most of the jobs finished within 25 minutes. These are all on GitHub Actions. But the two Cirrus jobs waited for 5h 49m until a runner was available, before completing in around 4 minutes each. In contast, the GHA There's not too much difference in a 4 minute Cirrus job vs a 6 minute GHA job, especially if you have to wait a long time for a runner. And in normal times, the whole build is about 25 mins anyway. We have 50 parallel runners available on GHA. I don't know the actual number on Cirrus, but it's much lower. So let's just use the GHA runners. This will also help for sprints (for example, PyCon US during #134390). Thanks to Datadog for these visualisations! |
Thanks @JacobCoffee for the PR, and @hugovk for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.12, 3.13, 3.14. |
(cherry picked from commit 6954077) Co-authored-by: Jacob Coffee <jacob@z7x.org> Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
(cherry picked from commit 6954077) Co-authored-by: Jacob Coffee <jacob@z7x.org> Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
GH-139802 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.14 branch. |
Sorry, @JacobCoffee and @hugovk, I could not cleanly backport this to
|
GH-139803 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.13 branch. |
(cherry picked from commit 6954077) Co-authored-by: Jacob Coffee <jacob@z7x.org> Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>
GH-139804 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.12 branch. |
A continuation of #134390