-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
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
Wait longer for docker to start up in workflow/reproducible.yaml. #4574
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Wait longer for docker to start up in workflow/reproducible.yaml. #4574
Conversation
.github/workflows/reproducible.yaml
Outdated
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ jobs: | |||
echo "/usr/local/bin" >> $GITHUB_PATH | |||
echo "$(brew --prefix)/opt/gnu-sed/libexec/gnubin" >> $GITHUB_PATH | |||
fi | |||
- uses: docker-practice/actions-setup-docker@master | |||
- uses: daniel-wong-dfinity-org/actions-setup-docker@wait-longer-for-docker-to-start-up |
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.
Should we really own a fork of this repo? Is this a temporary solution? What is the long term plan?
Should the fork live in a DFINITY account rather than your account?
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.
Ideally, no, but the maintainers of the original are not responding to an existing pull request, nor to related issue reports.
Yes, Ideally, the repo would be owned by DFINITY. Not sure how to do that, because when I forked, it said I wasn't allowed to make it a DFINITY repo 🤷 Maybe, this is just a matter of asking IT to grant me permission?
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.
Can you ask around what would be the normal process for something like this?
Since this isn't a very urgent issue, I'd rather do it properly.
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.
In the past I have been allowed to use forks - if anything the fork is a bit more trustworthy than the original. The original in this case is by a single developer we have no relationship with. But I do also put effort into merging fixes upstream, both internally (e.g. PRs to the sdk) and externally (e.g. with yq). I would hope that forks are not forever.
The developer seems to be Chinese. I wanted to sponsor them, as developers tend to be responsive to sponsors and this might get the fix merged upstream but couldn't understand their sponsoring page. @daniel-wong-dfinity-org - do you understand Chinese? Maybe you would have better luck? I could also use the GitHub sponsoring system. I tend not to use that if developers have posted a more specific sponsoring link.
There is a general problem with governance of open source projects, specifically with maintainers falling off the face of the planet or being unresponsive. One thing that would be nice to have is a stock DAO that works well for small projects, not the big projects like OpenChat where setting up the DAO is like an IPO. Just a small thing that covers succession planning and maintenance.
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.
At this point, I think it is fair to assume that rousing the original developer is infeasible.
I have figured out how to create a "fork" that is controlled by dfinity, and have pointed to that.
Seems like everyone would now consider this to be "proper" enough.
(ofc, ideally the original developer would accept the pull request, and we can go back to pointing at that and delete all of our forks.)
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.
Bah. The workflow runner cannot see dfinity/actions-setup-docker, even though it definitely exists.
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.
It doesn't exist if I try it in an incognito window so it should probably be made public.
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!
…ting for docker to start up during .github/workflows/reproducible.yaml.
…trolled by DFINITY.
c4a0b9e
to
9bd29ee
Compare
…ts a few minutes ago while doing git rebase.
…e` workflow working.
6645081
Motivation
macos-12 was timing out (example).
Changes
Overall effect: docker now has 10 minutes to start up before we give up, instead of 3 minutes.
Implementation: Instead of using the official
actions-setup-docker
, I forked it from the original repo. The "real" changes are in the fork. The changes here just point to the fork instead of the official repo.The changes in the fork are suggested by a long-open pull request to the official
actions-setup-docker
repo. The maintainers have not responded to that PR, nor to related issue reports in almost a year. This is why I forked their repo.Tests
.github/workflows/reproducible.yaml
now gets past theactions-setup-docker
step after 3 min 15 s; it only needed 15 additioinal seconds to work (example).Todos
References