On 28/02/2020 11:28, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
On Fri, 2020-02-28 at 13:37 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 07:27, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi all,
You might have read the short take in the X.org board meeting
minutes
already, here's the long version.
The good news: gitlab.fd.o has become very popular with our
communities, and is used extensively. This especially includes all
the
CI integration. Modern development process and tooling, yay!
The bad news: The cost in growth has also been tremendous, and it's
breaking our bank account. With reasonable estimates for continued
growth we're expecting hosting expenses totalling 75k USD this
year,
and 90k USD next year. With the current sponsors we've set up we
can't
sustain that. We estimate that hosting expenses for gitlab.fd.o
without any of the CI features enabled would total 30k USD, which
is
within X.org's ability to support through various sponsorships,
mostly
through XDC.
Note that X.org does no longer sponsor any CI runners themselves,
we've stopped that. The huge additional expenses are all just in
storing and serving build artifacts and images to outside CI
runners
sponsored by various companies. A related topic is that with the
growth in fd.o it's becoming infeasible to maintain it all on
volunteer admin time. X.org is therefore also looking for admin
sponsorship, at least medium term.
Assuming that we want cash flow reserves for one year of
gitlab.fd.o
(without CI support) and a trimmed XDC and assuming no sponsor
payment
meanwhile, we'd have to cut CI services somewhere between May and
June
this year. The board is of course working on acquiring sponsors,
but
filling a shortfall of this magnitude is neither easy nor quick
work,
and we therefore decided to give an early warning as soon as
possible.
Any help in finding sponsors for fd.o is very much appreciated.
a) Ouch.
b) we probably need to take a large step back here.
I kinda agree, but maybe the step doesn't have to be *too* large?
I wonder if we could solve this by restructuring the project a bit. I'm
talking purely from a Mesa point of view here, so it might not solve
the full problem, but:
1. It feels silly that we need to test changes to e.g the i965 driver
on dragonboards. We only have a big "do not run CI at all" escape-
hatch.
Yeah, changes on vulkan drivers or backend compilers should be fairly
sandboxed.
We also have tools that only work for intel stuff, that should never
trigger anything on other people's HW.
Could something be worked out using the tags?
-Lionel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
