Skip to content

Conversation

cstamas
Copy link
Member

@cstamas cstamas commented Oct 6, 2025

By default the matrix will fail fast, but in this case it makes no sense, and is even better to make it non fail fast.

Ref:
https://github.com/apache/maven-gh-actions-shared/blob/3b6a3fd53a6cc1ea2f5f25625cc9fd6a9d6ebe22/.github/workflows/maven-verify.yml#L162

By default the matrix will fail fast, but in this case it
makes no sense, and is even better to make it non fail fast.

Ref:
https://github.com/apache/maven-gh-actions-shared/blob/3b6a3fd53a6cc1ea2f5f25625cc9fd6a9d6ebe22/.github/workflows/maven-verify.yml#L162
@desruisseaux
Copy link
Contributor

It looks fine to me. But wouldn't "fail fast" be nicer for the carbon footprint?

@cstamas
Copy link
Member Author

cstamas commented Oct 6, 2025

Certainly it is. It was just an idea to point out this possibility as well, as currently whole CI run can be thrown away, while in that mode one can "rerun failed jobs" via GH UI.

@olamy
Copy link
Member

olamy commented Oct 9, 2025

If we keep running the workflow while we know it doesn't make sense, as something has already failed.
It sounds bad to me, especially as we share GHA runners with the entire Apache organisation, and so we will potentially consume running time for nothing useful. We had issue in the past as running too much (nothing is free with GHA)

@desruisseaux
Copy link
Contributor

If we have a limited amount of time (in addition to concern for carbon footprint), then indeed it seems to me that we should stop the build as soon as we know that there is a problem.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants