Given they still support Ubuntu 16.04 (https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments), I suspect 18.04 will be supported until the upstream EOL in 2023. — Rebeca Cran > On Jan 8, 2021, at 11:35 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > On 01/08/21 19:14, Rebecca Cran wrote: >>> On 1/8/21 11:01 AM, Sean wrote: >>> >>> Question to the community (especially those using a Linux environment) >>> is what priority should it be to go resolve these and update CI to run >>> on Ubuntu 20.04? General premise is we should stay current without >>> being bleeding edge but I want to understand other perspectives. >> >> From previous discussions, it sounds like we did want to be on the >> bleeding edge - which I personally think is a bad idea, since breaking >> changes can come in at the worst time. >> >> Instead, we should stay on a stable release but watch out for newer >> versions and move forward to them after applying any fixes. >> > > I'm all for sticking with stable artifacts, but: > > - we don't know *how long* the github.com/actions organization intends > to support the 18.04 LTS image > > - the breakage with 20.04 LTS indeed hit us at a bad time, but at least > we had something to fall back to. If we switch to the oldest supported > VM image, as a permanent choice, then, when that image loses support, > we'll only be able to escape *forward* -- and *that* is an even worse > experience. > > It's always the same problem -- production users always want *someone > else* to test out the new release for them. > > Instead, what I would really welcome here is if we exempted edk2 patches > that tweaked the CI configuration from the usual patch review process. > Delaying an actual edk2 patch because its review is not complete -- > that's fine, that's how development works. On the other hand, blocking > the *merging* of an otherwise reviewed patch, just because the CI system > is broken again, is an *outrage*. Having to submit *further patches to > review* -- this time for the CI config itself --, in order to mitigate > the CI breakage, is a completely broken workflow. > > Laszlo >