On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 10:26 PM Daniel Stone <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 at 22:47, Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I did run into a bit of a chicken vs. egg problem with testing the "in
> > > tree" version (compared to earlier versions which kept most of the yml
> > > and scripts in a separate tree), is that it actually requires this
> > > commit to exist in the branch you want to run CI on. My earlier
> > > workaround of pulling the drm/ci commit in via
> > > ${branchname}-external-fixes no longer works.
> >
> > After unwinding some more gitlab repo settings that were for the
> > previous out-of-tree yml setup, I have this working.
> >
> > Tested-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> And it's also:
> Acked-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> It's been back and forth a few times by now and reviewed pretty
> heavily by all the people who are across the CI details. I think the
> next step is to answer all the workflow questions by actually getting
> it into trees and using it in anger. There was some discussion about
> whether this should come in from drm-misc, or the core DRM tree, or a
> completely separate pull, but I'm not sure what the conclusion was ...
> maintainers, thoughts?
I'd prefer a separate pull, so that I could merge it into msm-next as
well without having to pull in all of drm-misc
Possibly some other driver trees would like to do similar?
BR,
-R
