Hi Nicolas, On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 01:05:12PM -0500, Nicolas Dufresne wrote: > Le jeudi 29 février 2024 à 10:02 +0100, Maxime Ripard a écrit : > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 07:55:25PM -0300, Helen Koike wrote: > > > This patch introduces a `.gitlab-ci` file along with a `ci/` folder, > > > defininga basic test pipeline triggered by code pushes to a GitLab-CI > > > instance. This initial version includes static checks (checkpatch and > > > smatch for now) and build tests across various architectures and > > > configurations. It leverages an integrated cache for efficient build > > > times and introduces a flexible 'scenarios' mechanism for > > > subsystem-specific extensions. > > > > > > [ci: add prerequisites to run check-patch on MRs] > > > Co-developed-by: Tales Aparecida <tales.aparecida@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Tales Aparecida <tales.aparecida@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Helen Koike <helen.koike@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Hey all, > > > > > > You can check the validation of this patchset on: > > > https://gitlab.collabora.com/koike/linux/-/pipelines/87035 > > > > > > I would appreciate your feedback on this work, what do you think? > > > > > > If you would rate from 0 to 5, where: > > > > > > [ ] 0. I don't think this is useful at all, and I doubt it will ever be. It doesn't seem worthwhile. > > > [ ] 1. I don't find it useful in its current form. > > > [ ] 2. It might be useful to others, but not for me. > > > [ ] 3. It has potential, but it's not yet something I can incorporate into my workflow. > > > [ ] 4. This is useful, but it needs some adjustments before I can include it in my workflow. > > > [ ] 5. This is really useful! I'm eager to start using it right away. Why didn't you send this earlier? :) > > > > > > 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? > > As agreed, the .gitlab-ci.yaml file at the list will go away. Its a default > location, but not a required location. This way, each sub-system can have their > own (or not have one). The different sub-system forks will have to be configured > to point to their respective CI main configuration. > > Of course nothing prevents having common set of configuration for jobs and jobs > template. As an example, we could have a job template common for checkpatch, and > allow each subsystem adding their own sauce on top. It can save the duplicate > effort of parsing the tool results and reporting it in a format gitlab > understand. That makes total sense to me and would be incredibly useful indeed. Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
