Skip to content
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

Modernize GitHub CI #467

Closed

Conversation

keryell
Copy link
Member

@keryell keryell commented Oct 5, 2023

The current ones are deprecated because running on unsupported Node 12.

@keryell keryell force-pushed the ronan/SYCL-2020/modernize-CI branch from 3ad18d3 to 0f5b238 Compare March 27, 2024 22:57
@keryell keryell marked this pull request as ready for review March 28, 2024 15:47
@keryell keryell changed the base branch from main to sycl-2020 February 6, 2025 02:25
@keryell
Copy link
Member Author

keryell commented Feb 6, 2025

It looks like all the branches for SYCL Next and SYCL 2020 have been renamed compared to https://gitlab.khronos.org/sycl/Specification/-/wikis/process/git

@gmlueck
Copy link
Contributor

gmlueck commented Feb 6, 2025

Do you still think we need this PR @keryell ? I did the "modernization" part a while ago. The other changes in this PR add some debugging stuff to the CI. I've been reluctant to merge that because I'm not sure if there is a security impact. Investigating has been low priority for me because I haven't had a need to run an interactive debugger in the CI job.

# SHA corresponds to tag "asciidoctor-spec.20240727".
container: khronosgroup/docker-images@sha256:089687083ceb36483a3917389e4278718ab19c594099634f5dd80e22540c960f
# Use Khronos container with asciidoctor toolchain preinstalled
container: khronosgroup/docker-images:asciidoctor-spec
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks like a merge mistake.

Copy link
Member Author

@keryell keryell Feb 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I removed this from my PR as I thought that we might forget about jumping the hash, even if it is more secure to have a fixed hash.

@keryell
Copy link
Member Author

keryell commented Feb 6, 2025

OK, closing as I might not need to debug this myself anymore.

@keryell keryell closed this Feb 6, 2025
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.

2 participants