Re: Heads Up: cirrus-ci is shutting down June 1st

Hi,

On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 at 17:04, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> On 2026-06-04 14:12:32 +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > 0001 LGTM. I really liked the slicing solution on Windows VS.
>
> > 0003:
> >
> > I think it makes sense to be explicit about this. I don't think this
> > CI will cause any problems (to users) since Github Actions is free on
> > public repositories but it is better safe than sorry.
>
> It turns out that if you make a private fork of the public PG repo, it's
> rather easy to churn through the free minutes included in the account...

Yes, it sounds bad :(

> But I think Jacob's concern is more that there's thousands of forks of
> postgres, if they all suddenly start to run CI, that's quite a bit of wasted
> effort (including downloading our containers etc).

I got it, yes that is a valid concern.

> > Also, from discussion on PostgreSQL Hacking Discord channel:
> >
> > Thomas Munro mentioned:
> >
> > > Maybe "Report if CI is not enabled in this repository" would be
> > slightly clearer. it's not really a warning, it's just stating a
> > fact. or maybe "Report if PG_CI_ENABLED is not set to 1 in this
> > repository" even?
>
> For a moment I thought we could solve this by using ${{case(...)} in the job's
> .name, but it turns out those are only evaluated when the job gets closer
> would have a chance to run. So it ends up looking too ugly.
>
>
> > I liked 'Report if CI is not enabled in this repository'.
>
> After Thomas' suggestion I first went with:
> "Report if repo has not opted into CI"
> but that turned out to be truncated in the display. So now I went with
> "Report if not opted into CI"
> which is not truncated.
>
> How is that?

I think this is better. I am okay with 'Report if not opted into CI'.

> > Jelte Fennema-Nio mentioned:
> >
> > > I think being opt-in is fine. I'd actually fail the build though, instead of succeeding. People are probably more inclined to click the red cross next to a commit than a green checkmark.
> >
> > I think this makes sense too. Green color can be seen as it is
> > expected and nothing wrong.
>
> I don't like it much, because it means suddenly a lot of red will appear in
> people that just have a fork to look at code etc...

I see, yes you are right. People might start to get emails about the
CI failing if we would implement it like that and that would be a
frustrating experience.

> On 2026-06-04 15:27:42 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 04.06.26 04:46, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Attached is a possible implementation of this. If the PG_CI_ENABLED
> > > repository variable is not set to 1, we run as little CI as possible.
>
> > I suggest maybe using "Note" instead of "Caution" because otherwise it
> > sounds quite dangerous and maybe we want to reserve that for when we have
> > some serious things to report.
>
> I changed it to IMPORTANT, that seemed more fitting than just a NOTE?

I think 'IMPORTANT' is better compared to 'NOTE'.

> I also changed to use tee -a for the printing the opt-in summary, so the
> message is visible inside the step, as otherwise one doesn't see anything when
> navigating to the "Report ..." job. It's just markdown printed literally, but
> it seems readable enough.

This makes sense. That was the first thing I did when I was testing.

--
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft