On Sat, 2020-04-04 at 08:11 -0700, Rob Clark wrote: > 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 :-( I think that's mostly a complaint about the conditionals we've written so far, tbh. As I commented on the bug, when I clicked the container job (which the rules happen to have evaluated to being "manual"), every job (recursively) downstream of it got enqueued, which isn't what you're describing. So I think if you can describe the UX you'd like we can write rules to make that reality. But I don't really know which jobs are most expensive in terms of bandwidth, or storage, or CPUs, and even if I knew those I don't know how to map those to currency. So I'm not sure if the UI we'd like would minimize the cost the way we'd like. - ajax _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
