Hi! On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:23:22AM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote: > Hi everyone, > > On 2/29/24 11:02, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 07:55:25PM -0300, Helen Koike wrote: > > > Which rating would you select? > > > > 4.5 :) > > > > One thing I'm wondering here is how we're going to cope with the > > different requirements each user / framework has. > > > > Like, Linus probably want to have a different set of CI before merging a > > PR than (say) linux-next does, or stable, or before doing an actual > > release. > > > > Similarly, DRM probably has a different set of requirements than > > drm-misc, drm-amd or nouveau. > > > > I don't see how the current architecture could accomodate for that. I > > know that Gitlab allows to store issues template in a separate repo, > > maybe we could ask them to provide a feature where the actions would be > > separate from the main repo? That way, any gitlab project could provide > > its own set of tests, without conflicting with each others (and we could > > still share them if we wanted to) > > > > I know some of use had good relationship with Gitlab, so maybe it would > > be worth asking? > > GitLab already supports getting the CI YAML from other repos. You can change > that in the repo settings. I'm interested but couldn't find it in the doc, do you have a link to the right section? > However, I think a better approach would be *not* to add the .gitlab-ci.yaml > file in the root of the source tree, but instead change the very same repo > setting to point to a particular entry YAML, *inside* the repo (somewhere > under "ci" directory) instead. > > This way all the different subtrees can have completely different setup, but > some could still use Helen's work and employ the "scenarios" she > implemented. I'm worried that this kind of setup will just create duplicated YAML that will be developped in complete silos and will become difficult to maintain. But that's definitely an opinion :) Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
