generate-cask-ci-matrix: skip signing on macOS 15 #24312

Closed
bevanjkay opened 6:52am on October 21, 2026 wanted to merge 88 Ξ” into homebrew/brew main from
handoff_brew_skip_audit

Pull Request Overview

  • Opened on October 21, 2026
  • Status Closed
  • Commit count 1 with first commit October 21, 2026

Total Delta

88 Total Diff Delta

Open Days

Open 15 weekdays

Test Delta

59 Diff Delta in Test Files
Breakdown by Phase

How long has this pull request spent in each phase of its lifecycle?

Fraction of total time Business days Phase
 
0 days Authoring 1 commit before pull request opened for review
 
0 days Awaiting first review
 
1 day Revising work with 0 commits in response to 2 reviews that left 2 comments

Total time for pull request 1 business day from first commit to closed PR

Author avatar

generate-cask-ci-matrix: skip signing on macOS 15

In homebrew/cask CI, the signing audit intermittently fails on the macos-15 runner with Signature verification failed for <X>: rejected, while macos-26 and xcode-27 accept the same artifacts in the same run. Locally, the artifacts verify as notarized, and a re-run often clears the failure. Each one costs a maintainer a re-run and an investigation.

macos-15 runners are only included when the cask definition specifically requires the variation.

This PR adds signing to the macos-15 job's --except only when another macOS runner downloads the same URL, so the artifact is still signing-audited elsewhere. A URL that only macos-15 downloads keeps its signing check, as does a cask limited to macos-15. Every other audit still runs on macos-15.

Below is a table that shows how many signing audits will be skipped on macos-15 after this change (1,246), and how many will still be explicitly checked (12).

Casks
Count

Get a macos-15 job
1,258

macos-15 shares its URL with another macOS runner
1,246

macos-15 downloads a URL no other runner audits
12



  • [x] Have you followed our Contributing guidelines?

  • [x] Have you checked for other open Pull Requests for the same change?

  • [x] Have you explained what your changes do? Performance claims (e.g. "this is faster") must include brew benchmark results.

  • [x] Have you explained why you'd like these changes included, not just what they do?

  • [ ] For bug fixes, have you given step-by-step brew commands to reproduce the bug?

  • [x] Have you written new tests (excluding integration tests)? Here's an example.

  • [x] Have you successfully run brew lgtm (style, typechecking and tests) locally?



  • [x] I did not use AI/LLM to create this PR, or I disclosed the tool/model below and reviewed its output; I did not attribute commits to AI and will answer maintainer questions and review comments myself without AI/LLM.

Claude with Opus 5.5 at Extra High effort, with local review and testing.


Comments Threads Pending Resolution

MikeMcQuaid reviewed and approved this work on October 21, 2026
MikeMcQuaid left a comment

Thanks!

Resolved Comment Threads

No resolved comments have been left on this PR.