ci: switch to custom setup-go action in windows

[kruskall]

Motivation/summary

windows runner has significantly slower disks and restoring the cache is wasting a huge amount of time

Checklist

• Update CHANGELOG.asciidoc
• Documentation has been updated

For functional changes, consider:

• Is it observable through the addition of either logging or metrics?
• Is its use being published in telemetry to enable product improvement?
• Have system tests been added to avoid regression?

How to test these changes

Related issues

See actions/setup-go#495
Slightly related to #15581

[mergify]

This pull request does not have a backport label. Could you fix it @kruskall? 🙏
To fixup this pull request, you need to add the backport labels for the needed
branches, such as:

• backport-7.17 is the label to automatically backport to the 7.17 branch.
• backport-8./d is the label to automatically backport to the 8./d branch. /d is the digit.
• backport-9./d is the label to automatically backport to the 9./d branch. /d is the digit.
• backport-8.x is the label to automatically backport to the 8.x branch.
• backport-active-all is the label that automatically backports to all active branches.
• backport-active-8 is the label that automatically backports to all active minor branches for the 8 major.
• backport-active-9 is the label that automatically backports to all active minor branches for the 9 major.

[kruskall]

tested on my fork, test windows time went down from ~5m to ~1m: https://github.com/kruskall/apm-server/actions/runs/13245308706/job/36972215506

[v1v]

To play safe, this is a fork commit, and somehow I feel we could raise the fix to the upstream maybe, instead of using the fork from someone else.

I understand the benefits, but I'm a bit concerned about opening this

[v1v]

OTOH, we are using permissions: contents: read by default. But according to our guideline, we need to be cautious to use third-party actions.

[kruskall]

there's already a PR open for it upstream, the action is from that PR 😭

See actions/setup-go#515

OTOH, we are using permissions: contents: read by default. But according to our guideline, we need to be cautious to use third-party actions.

fully agree with this. I pinned the action to a commit to avoid tampering. It should be enough to avoid such issues. WDYT ?

[v1v]

We can give a go; the only thing could be the one whether the commit vanished