ci: add workflow to clean caches periodically #1807

pull 8144225309 wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin-core:master from 8144225309:ci-clean-caches changing 1 files +18 −0

8144225309 commented at 7:42 AM on January 25, 2026: contributor

Deletes all caches on the 1st and 15th of each month.

Fixes #1691
in .github/workflows/caches.yml:1 in fcb90a033b
```
   0 | @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
   1 | +name: Caches
```
real-or-random commented at 8:55 AM on January 27, 2026:

I think the description can be clearer here. Something like "Delete all GitHub Actions caches"
in .github/workflows/caches.yml:12 in fcb90a033b
```
   7 | +permissions:
   8 | +  actions: write
   9 | +
  10 | +jobs:
  11 | +  clean:
  12 | +    name: Delete all caches
```
real-or-random commented at 8:56 AM on January 27, 2026:

I'd use the same name here because there's really only a single job in this workflow
real-or-random commented at 8:56 AM on January 27, 2026: contributor

Concept ACK

I'm a bit hesitant due to the actions: write permission, but I tend to think it's okay here. This workflow doesn't even have an input that could be attacker controlled. And actions restricts it to GitHub Actions stuff.
real-or-random added the label ci on Jan 27, 2026
ci: add workflow to clean caches periodically
Fixes #1691
a27ae1ac83
8144225309 force-pushed on Jan 27, 2026
real-or-random approved
real-or-random commented at 10:30 AM on January 27, 2026: contributor

ACK a27ae1ac8344bdc54cdabb23128e33caf28d4f47
real-or-random commented at 10:30 AM on January 27, 2026: contributor

cc @hebasto
hebasto commented at 12:59 PM on January 27, 2026: member

It's shame that https://github.com/actions/cache does not provide an option to set a retention period explicitly.

I think we could avoid introducing a new workflow with the write permission by simply rotating the cache keys regularly. Feel free to grab a commit from this branch.
real-or-random commented at 2:07 PM on January 27, 2026: contributor

I think we could avoid introducing a new workflow with the write permission by simply rotating the cache keys regularly.

That seems cleaner indeed.

edit: This means for this PR:

Approach NACK
hebasto commented at 2:51 PM on January 27, 2026: member

Unrelated to the changes in this PR, the current GCC snapshot has been failing self-tests since ed2924c7628343ff8b699f320a05c85bdb9c2837.

UPDATE: The issue should be fixed in a6c3c48148dd60a09ffab57019f163180c159d65.
hebasto commented at 10:37 PM on February 1, 2026: member

I think we could avoid introducing a new workflow with the write permission by simply rotating the cache keys regularly.

That seems cleaner indeed.

Done in #1816.
real-or-random commented at 7:58 AM on February 2, 2026: contributor

Let me close this in favor of #1816.
real-or-random closed this on Feb 2, 2026
real-or-random referenced this in commit 453949ab2a on Feb 2, 2026
real-or-random referenced this in commit c5da3bde9c on Feb 3, 2026
8144225309 deleted the branch on Apr 9, 2026

Contributors

8144225309

real-or-random

hebasto

Labels

Linked (view graph)

#1691 ci: Clean the cache regularly to test on new compiler snapshots #1816 ci: Rotate Docker cache keys #1818 ci: Enforce base-10 evaluation