On Thu, 6 Oct 2016, Gregory Farnum wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Oct 2016, Andrew Schoen wrote: > >> >> We could keep the implicit convention for `wip-*` or maybe something similar? > >> > > >> > Building everything that starts with wip-* sounds fine to me. But > >> > isn't that usually everything that we push to the ceph/ceph > >> > repository? What is is that we're trying to avoid building? > >> > > >> > John > >> > >> I think the idea is that we only want to build branches that we plan > >> to run tests against. As we add more flavors, distros and > >> architectures to build for the workload increases exponentially. The > >> system is designed to scale, but let's not build things we don't > >> really need. > > > > I think we need a "do not build" prefix and a "build this asap" prefix. > > Maybe nobuild-* and asap-*? > > I can't imagine anybody's going to remember to stick "nobuild" in > front of things. If we're really concerned about not building > everything, it needs to be proactive. I'd really like two interfaces: > 1) append "-build" to the end of a branch. This would have to be a > postfix so we don't pick up every branch that fixes some build issue > or rearranges the makefiles. > 2) Have a web page or github integration we can use to say "include > this branch in the builds". > > In particular what I'm thinking is, we want a way to build stuff right > away from the push for quick turnaround times. But we'll want to push > branches for RFC etc before we really care if they're widely built, > and renaming them or trying to update two refs would be a hassle. It might be simpler to just avoid pushing things to ceph.git that aren't meant to be built; that's what our personal github clone repos are usually for. Which means (IMO) we only really need a "please build this branch before the others". And that doesn't need to be done as part of the branch name. In fact, it's probably better if it isn't, so that you can prioritize a branch even after it has been pushed. But this reminds me... a while back I created a ceph-ci.git repo, the idea being that we could move *all* of the wip-* and random branches from ceph.git over there and have ceph.git only contain the "official" branches (like master, jewel, hammer, etc.). CI would pull from both, and we could allow developers access to ceph-ci.git without giving them access to ceph.git. We talked about this ages ago but never actually made any switch. Maybe this is a good time to do it? Original thread here: http://www.spinics.net/lists/ceph-devel/msg24251.html sage -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
