Skip to content

ci: switch to smaller ubuntu-slim runner image#1555

Merged
jochenklar merged 1 commit into
rdmorganiser:2.4.5/releasefrom
afuetterer:ci
May 10, 2026
Merged

ci: switch to smaller ubuntu-slim runner image#1555
jochenklar merged 1 commit into
rdmorganiser:2.4.5/releasefrom
afuetterer:ci

Conversation

@afuetterer
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Description

For these smaller ci jobs the newer ubuntu-slim runner should be sufficient, no need for a full fledged VM.

Refs:

Motivation and Context

How has this been tested?

@afuetterer afuetterer changed the title ci: switch to smaller ubuntu-slim runner image ci: switch to smaller ubuntu-slim runner image Mar 10, 2026
@afuetterer afuetterer added type:maintenance github_actions Pull requests that update GitHub Actions code labels Mar 17, 2026
@jochenklar jochenklar added this to the RDMO 2.5.0 milestone Mar 28, 2026
@afuetterer afuetterer requested a review from MyPyDavid April 22, 2026 18:55
@MyPyDavid
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

thanks @afuetterer , looks fine to with the -slim image.
Am not sure whether we can also take this already in the 2.4.5 patch release? @jochenklar

@jochenklar
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Yes, and I think we should even do this directly from the GitHub actions to PyPI. I think a less prominent release is better for this. I will prepare a PR and then you can check if I did it right.

@MyPyDavid
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Yes, and I think we should even do this directly from the GitHub actions to PyPI. I think a less prominent release is better for this. I will prepare a PR and then you can check if I did it right.

this is just about the tpye of Ubuntu Image that the runner uses, we can also try this in the 2.4.5 right?

@afuetterer
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Yes, and I think we should even do this directly from the GitHub actions to PyPI. I think a less prominent release is better for this. I will prepare a PR and then you can check if I did it right.

this is just about the tpye of Ubuntu Image that the runner uses, we can also try this in the 2.4.5 right?

That is correct.

@MyPyDavid MyPyDavid modified the milestones: RDMO 2.5.0, RDMO 2.4.5 May 7, 2026
@MyPyDavid MyPyDavid changed the base branch from 2.5.0/release to 2.4.5/release May 7, 2026 14:46
@MyPyDavid
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Ive change it but now there is this merge conflict on the changelog. Can I force push to this branch (is that ok) or should we cherry pick the commit simply on a new branch from the 2.4.5/release and make a new PR? Or do you want to rebase and force push it?

@afuetterer
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Please do. My changes are in ci.yml only.

@coveralls
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Coverage Status

Coverage is 94.901%afuetterer:ci into rdmorganiser:2.4.5/release. No base build found for rdmorganiser:2.4.5/release.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@MyPyDavid MyPyDavid left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A slimmer VM and tests still run on same speed!

@afuetterer
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

A slimmer VM and tests still run on same speed!

But less compute ressources are used. I think its better to just take what you need. Poor GitHub is struggling these days.

@MyPyDavid
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I don't think that it is us taking so many resources when they are building "Copilots" in all of their products 😅 but yeah fair use seems also better to me

@afuetterer
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Agreed.

@afuetterer
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Merge then?

@jochenklar jochenklar merged commit 535b527 into rdmorganiser:2.4.5/release May 10, 2026
18 checks passed
@afuetterer afuetterer deleted the ci branch May 10, 2026 10:37
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

github_actions Pull requests that update GitHub Actions code type:maintenance

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants