AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 15 Bitcoin

Merge rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin#6618: ci: disable fail-fast in weekly rustc update crons

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Andrew Poelstra

100/100 · Strong
Merge rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin#6618: ci: disable fail-fast in weekly rustc update crons

d9fef884e81f7686ce667352a1a97ad05826c482 ci: disable fail-fast in weekly toolchain update matrix (satsfy (Renato Britto))

Pull request description:

Note that nightly and stable rustc updates have broken:
- https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/actions/workflows/cron-weekly-update-stable.yml
- https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/actions/workflows/cron-weekly-update-nightly.yml

Because of `fail-fast`, a broken 0.32.xxx job takes the master and 0.32.xx updates down with it. This PR makes each branch succeed or fail on its own.

The cargo-rbmt install issue this PR originally also addressed was fixed on master by the shared setup-rbmt action, so that part is gone.


ACKs for top commit:
apoelstra:
ACK d9fef884e81f7686ce667352a1a97ad05826c482; successfully ran local tests
tcharding:
ACK d9fef884e81f7686ce667352a1a97ad05826c482


Tree-SHA512: 918c3c4bf66b3d4a987daace3d7cf93966ba197b2fb6141d544be3de8acc85e478f09506c24bd941592c77259dba9537d7c25cab104a89540d410733c1e792cd
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Explains rationale or failure mode✓ Mentions testing or verification✓ Links an issue, advisory, or supporting reference
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit changes two GitHub Actions workflow files used for weekly automated Rust toolchain updates. It adds `fail-fast: false` so that if one branch's update job fails, the other branch jobs continue running instead of all being cancelled. This is purely a CI reliability/configuration change and does not touch any library code, cryptography, network handling, or user-facing behavior.

Recommended action

No security action required. This is a benign CI configuration improvement.

Security signals we found

No strong security signals were identified.

Risk score

Why this scored 15/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 0/30
Exploitability 0/25
Stealth signal 0/15
Affected reach 0/15
Confidence 10/10
Evidence quality 5/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.