3 ms·

Sounds like GitHub actions should be caching clones of foreign Git repos. People already trust GH CI enough to run their code, so why not trust their cache as

• coder543 3y ago
  FWIW, it’s not a git repo, it’s a mercurial repo.
  • capitainenemo 3y ago
    And even if it was a git repo, seems this would still be a problem if everything wasn't on github. I guess the solution is to put all code on github...
    • capitainenemo 3y ago
      BTW, for anyone reading this later, I asked some mercurial folks and putting an http cache in front of clones does indeed work just fine, although using the repo bundles is more performant (but might not be something you could ask folks to do). Given this repo seems fairly low activity (last commit 7 months ago) I doubt there'd be much of a problem with caching reads. Although given how they are using this repo, they'd probably be better off with a shallow clone, or a subversion proxy, or a snapshot tarball...likely just need a set of files..
• teraflop 3y ago
  In this case, it's a foreign Mercurial repository, not Git. And remember that users' builds can contain arbitrary custom shell scripts that perform "git clone" or "hg clone" commands. It could be very, very difficult for Github to build an automated system that meddles with the behavior of those scripts to introduce caching, while guaranteeing not to break anything.