Skip to content

Conversation

@Flamefire
Copy link
Contributor

@Flamefire Flamefire commented Oct 9, 2025

This allows manually running the workflow e.g. to test recent changes in the main Boost project/libraries.

The idea is that library authors can request to run these 2 jobs after merging to develop/master to check it works in general and across different CMake versions

@pdimov
Copy link
Member

pdimov commented Oct 9, 2025

How would library authors request that?

@Flamefire
Copy link
Contributor Author

Via Slack or ML. I figured here is the best way to test things CMake.

Putting it into boostorg/boost instead to run on every submodule update commit might be too much, but possibly better as more complete/immediate. What do you think?

This allows manually running the workflow e.g. to test recent changes
in the main Boost project/libraries.
@pdimov
Copy link
Member

pdimov commented Oct 10, 2025

I split the workflows in a slightly different way.

@pdimov pdimov closed this Oct 10, 2025
@Flamefire
Copy link
Contributor Author

So this

4 times the jobs to 457, MS will love us ;-)

What's missing is the workflow trigger for the cmake_versions.yml

I really think it makes sense to be able to trigger running just that without making a commit here e.g. when checking a change from a library for whether it works for all CMake versions or when it does fail. Or before releases. At least the tags should trigger a run so we notice it for RCs at least when they are tagged. With the trigger we can run it for the beta before that.

@Flamefire Flamefire deleted the workflow-trigger branch October 10, 2025 12:04
@pdimov
Copy link
Member

pdimov commented Oct 10, 2025

RCs aren't tagged, but the betas are, so it probably makes sense to make CI run on tags.

You can add the workflow-dispatch in subsequent PRs if you like.

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants