chore(ci): enable m1 runner #13377
Merged
chore(ci): enable m1 runner #13377
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
r? @ehuss (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rustbot
added
A-infrastructure
|
@bors r+ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Muscraft
reviewed
Jan 31, 2024
|
@bors r- |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
I was mistaken in in my comment here, which led to an @bors r+ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
The CI result shows that M1 runner is the fastest among all platforms, around ~12 mins. For comparsion, x86_64 Linux stable took 13 mins and x86_64 darwin took 40 mins. |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 5, 2024
Update cargo 24 commits in 7bb7b539558dc88bea44cee4168b6269bf8177b0..cdf84b69d0416c57ac9dc3459af80dfb4883d27a 2024-01-20 00:15:32 +0000 to 2024-02-02 19:39:16 +0000 - Apply `-Zpanic-abort-tests` to doctests too (rust-lang/cargo#13388) - Don't print rustdoc command lines on failure by default (rust-lang/cargo#13387) - Ensure `nonzero_exit_code` test isn't affected by developers `RUST_BACKTRACE` setting (rust-lang/cargo#13385) - Add `docsrs` cfg as a well known `--check-cfg` (rust-lang/cargo#13383) - fix(new): Print a note, rather than a comment, for more information (rust-lang/cargo#13371) - Change tests to support changes to suggestion (rust-lang/cargo#13382) - chore(ci): enable m1 runner (rust-lang/cargo#13377) - fix(toml): Improve map/sequence error message (rust-lang/cargo#13376) - fix(diagnostic): Don't panic on empty spans (rust-lang/cargo#13375) - doc: Hide `cargo-fetch` description in offline man page (rust-lang/cargo#13364) - feat: stabilize lockfile v4 (rust-lang/cargo#12852) - fix(new): Print a 'Creating', rather than 'Created' status (rust-lang/cargo#13367) - fix: use spec id instead of name to match package (rust-lang/cargo#13335) - refactor(shell): Use new fancy anstyle API (rust-lang/cargo#13368) - feat(cargo-update): `--precise` to allow yanked versions (rust-lang/cargo#13333) - refactor: remove unnecessary Option in `Freshness::Dirty` (rust-lang/cargo#13361) - doc: Replace version with `latest` for jobserver link (rust-lang/cargo#13366) - test: data layout fix for `x86_64-unknown-none-gnu` (rust-lang/cargo#13362) - docs(ref): Try to improve reg auth docs (rust-lang/cargo#13351) - fix typo of rustbuild, instead of rustuild (rust-lang/cargo#13357) - fix(config): Deprecate non-extension files (rust-lang/cargo#13349) - fix(cli): Improve errors related to cargo script (rust-lang/cargo#13346) - fix list option description starting with uppercase (rust-lang/cargo#13344) - Fix typo in test (rust-lang/cargo#13342)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR try to resolve?
Enable M1 runner in Cargo's CI pipeline.
In the foreseeable future, aarch64-apple-darwin would be a tier-1 platform. Regardless, it is a major platform people use right now.
How should we test and review this PR?
Is there any other concern?
Additional information