[Mesa-dev] [Intel-gfx] gitlab.fd.o financial situation and impact on services

[Rob Clark]

On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 11:41 AM Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 11:16 AM Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 10:47 AM Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas at ndufresne.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > Le samedi 04 avril 2020 à 08:11 -0700, Rob Clark a écrit :
> > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 7:12 AM Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote:
> > > > > On 2020-03-01 6:46 a.m., Marek Olšák wrote:
> > > > > > For Mesa, we could run CI only when Marge pushes, so that it's a strictly
> > > > > > pre-merge CI.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the suggestion! I implemented something like this for Mesa:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_requests/4432
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't mind manually triggering pipelines, but unless there is
> > > > some trick I'm not realizing, it is super cumbersome.  Ie. you have to
> > > > click first the container jobs.. then wait.. then the build jobs..
> > > > then wait some more.. and then finally the actual runners.  That would
> > > > be a real step back in terms of usefulness of CI.. one might call it a
> > > > regression :-(
> > >
> > > On GStreamer side we have moved some existing pipeline to manual mode.
> > > As we use needs: between jobs, we could simply set the first job to
> > > manual (in our case it's a single job called manifest in your case it
> > > would be the N container jobs). This way you can have a manual pipeline
> > > that is triggered in single (or fewer) clicks. Here's an example:
> > >
> > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/gstreamer/gstreamer/pipelines/128292
> > >
> > > That our post-merge pipelines, we only trigger then if we suspect a
> > > problem.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure that would work for mesa since the hierarchy of jobs
> > branches out pretty far.. ie. if I just clicked the arm64 build + test
> > container jobs, and everything else ran automatically after that, it
> > would end up running all the CI jobs for all the arm devices (or at
> > least all the 64b ones)
>
> update: pepp pointed out on #dri-devel that the path-based rules
> should still apply to prune out hw CI jobs for hw not affected by the
> MR.  If that is the case, and we only need to click the container jobs
> (without then doing the wait&click dance), then this doesn't sound as
> bad as I feared.


PS. I should add, that in these wfh days, I'm relying on CI to be able
to test changes on some generations of hw that I don't physically have
with me.  It's easy to take for granted, I did until I thought about
what I'd do without CI.  So big thanks to all the people who are
working on CI, it's more important these days than you might realize
:-)

BR,
-R