Skip to content

Conversation

@rzikm
Copy link
Member

@rzikm rzikm commented Nov 19, 2025

Since futuer release branches will not use the -staging suffix, remove them from the stress test yml files. This does not affect runs on release/9.0-staging etc because the schedule is always checked against the version on that particular branch.

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings November 19, 2025 17:12
@github-actions github-actions bot added the needs-area-label An area label is needed to ensure this gets routed to the appropriate area owners label Nov 19, 2025
Copilot finished reviewing on behalf of rzikm November 19, 2025 17:13
Copy link
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Overview

This PR removes the -staging branch pattern from stress test pipeline schedules to align with the future release branch naming convention where the -staging suffix will no longer be used.

  • Removed release/*-staging branch pattern from scheduled pipeline triggers
  • Updated comments to remove references to .NET 8 and .NET 9 specific naming conventions
  • Retained release/*.0 pattern for .NET 10+ releases

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File Description
eng/pipelines/libraries/stress/ssl.yml Removed -staging branch pattern from SSL stress test pipeline schedule
eng/pipelines/libraries/stress/http.yml Removed -staging branch pattern from HTTP stress test pipeline schedule

@rzikm rzikm requested a review from a team November 19, 2025 17:19
@rzikm rzikm added area-System.Net and removed needs-area-label An area label is needed to ensure this gets routed to the appropriate area owners labels Nov 19, 2025
@dotnet-policy-service
Copy link
Contributor

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/ncl
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Copy link
Member

@ManickaP ManickaP left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should you run the stress on this at least once?

@rzikm
Copy link
Member Author

rzikm commented Nov 20, 2025

Should you run the stress on this at least once?

Not sure what that would tell us. It already runs for main, and release/10.0 is tested by manual runs in #121803

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

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants