Skip to content

Use Swatinem/rust-cache instead of actions/cache #317

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Use Swatinem/rust-cache instead of actions/cache #317

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

zanieb
Copy link
Member

@zanieb zanieb commented Sep 5, 2024 •
edited
Loading

I think this is a bit better practice. The cache handling in this action is relatively robust.

@zanieb zanieb changed the title zb/ci cache Use Swatinem/rust-cache instead of actions/cache Sep 5, 2024
@zanieb zanieb marked this pull request as draft September 5, 2024 22:39
@zanieb zanieb added the internal A refactor or improvement that is not user-facing label Sep 7, 2024
@zanieb zanieb marked this pull request as ready for review October 29, 2024 22:00
@reneleonhardt
Copy link

reneleonhardt commented Jul 13, 2025 •
edited
Loading

@charliermarsh Approved but not merged, are there any problems?

@zanieb
Copy link
Member Author

zanieb commented Jul 13, 2025

It's just not a critical change, why do you ask..?

@reneleonhardt
Copy link

It has been approved 8 months ago, makes you wonder why not just merge it since then... now it has conflicts.

@indygreg
Copy link
Collaborator

The Rust cache has marginal improvements to CI times. We can likely improve cache hit times by modifying actions/cache.

Given the criticality of PBS to the larger software ecosystem and that popularity making it an attractive target for software supply chain attacks, I have a soft preference for avoiding 3rd party GitHub Actions. If we do adopt 3rd party actions, I think we should pin the Git commit SHA so the implementation can't be changed out from under us without an explicit Git commit to this project.

@zanieb
Copy link
Member Author

zanieb commented Jul 13, 2025

Agreed, astral-sh/uv#12189 has been working well for us.

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

@charliermarsh charliermarsh charliermarsh approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
internal A refactor or improvement that is not user-facing
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@zanieb @reneleonhardt @indygreg @charliermarsh