On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 11:41 AM Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 11:16 AM Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 10:47 AM Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
