KAkamyarg·Nov 27, 2020Submission
GitHub Actions Stopped Working
3 points · Open discussionactions
checkout
TypeScript2020–2026
actions / checkout
checkout
Action for checking out a repo
21Distinct people
21Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
9KGitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
Action for checking out a repo
GitHub
Where it is used
No documented product use was verified in the last source check.
What people are saying
No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 5:05:26 PM UTC.
No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.
Mentions over time
HN mentions by year21 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2020-05-02 04:27:52 UTC to 2026-04-29 22:23:29 UTC.
* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 2021 | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2022 | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 2023 | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 2024 | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 2025 | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 7 | 2 | 5 |
| 2026 (partial) | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 5 | 0 | 5 |
What Hacker News says
3 sourcesGitHub Actions checking out wrong commit
1 points · Open discussionSort of. The only issue with merges in GitHub tends to be that merge or squashed commit itself isn’t tested before being committed. It’s always possible, though in practice this should be quite rare, that the merge or squash commit produces a different result than any of the individual commits did. I suppose you could do something like a pre-push hook that would run tests before sharing your code with everyone else, though I haven’t looked recently at what options are available with GitHub.
Edit: I stand somewhat corrected, seems most CI systems actually test the merged code - https://github.com/actions/checkout/issues/15#issuecomment-5... which I presume includes manually merged scenarios also. That said, they don’t appear to test squashed commits, under the assumption I suppose that any series of sequential changes will always cleanly s
Read the rest
quash with upstream as long as there are no merge conflicts.
When you use squash-and-merge approaches to GitHub PRs, you have to make sure you automatically delete old branches, as the connection between branch and commit only lives within the GitHub PR at that point (and maybe in a commit comment somewhere, not sure). But it’s not as explicit as merges which include the name of the branch in the merge commit.