Repository navigation
Conversation
github-actions
Bot
added
the
github actions
…d skip-ci-config.toml (#13313) bump TheRock ref to `c01e3a3` (2026-10-12) Adds `.github/skip-ci-config.toml` so TheRock's new path-based skip filtering (ROCm/TheRock#8800) can short-circuit CI when a PR only touches docs/metadata. Patterns are ported from `SKIPPABLE_PATH_PATTERNS` in `.github/scripts/therock_configure_ci.py`, and the `external_repo` payload now carries the SHAs/event info the filter needs. --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> (cherry picked from commit 7825f71)
Use release/bkc/therock-10.2-20261013 for reusable workflows, checkout refs, and RCCL defaults and fallbacks. Preserve dispatch overrides and leave artifact reuse policy in TheRock. Validation: pre-commit and diff checks passed. Actionlint reported four pre-existing findings in unchanged workflow logic. Generated with Codex
abd49fb to
6efde13
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure it is worth to touch RCCL CI as it is running be default on gfx950 anyway and CI won't give us a useful signal for 1250 in this context,
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Easier to just update all uses. De-duplicating workflows should happen outside of release activities IMO.
| "base_sha": "${{ github.event.pull_request.base.sha || github.event.before }}", | ||
| "head_sha": "${{ github.sha }}", | ||
| "pr_number": ${{ github.event.pull_request.number || 'null' }}, | ||
| "event_name": "${{ github.event_name }}", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are those needed? Seems to be the default anyway?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They are included from a cherry-pick of 7825f71, which was needed to get the CI to work after ROCm/TheRock#8800 landed. This PR is two commits (see the updated description)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Want to add something about this to the PR description? I think I am missing context here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's there now. The first commit is a cherry-pick.
marbre
left a comment
marbre
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As this branch was cut before the cherry-picked fix, I assume it is nether the less needed and probably interferes with code coming from the config repo rather than from TheRock. I guess what you did the correct thing :)
|
Yeah, I have some thoughts on how to make the workflow changes more forwards/backwards-compatible. Things may be unstable for a bit as we move in that direction though. See ROCm/TheRock#8991 from @geomin12 for example. |
|
CI signal looks clean enough to merge so the branch can be ready to receive subproject cherry-pick requests. |
4f9b267
into
release/bkc/therock-10.2-20261013
Motivation
The next BKC release branch was cut and this pins the workflows to use code from it.
Technical Details
Submission Checklist