Re: [RFC PATCH 14/15] gitlab-ci: Allow forks to use different set of jobs

["Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:20:55PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 19/04/2021 12.10, Erik Skultety wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:40:53AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:34:47AM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > > > Forks run the same jobs than mainstream, which might be overkill.
> > > > Allow them to easily rebase their custom set, while keeping using
> > > > the mainstream templates, and ability to pick specific jobs from
> > > > the mainstream set.
> > > > 
> > > > To switch to your set, simply add your .gitlab-ci.yml as
> > > > .gitlab-ci.d/${CI_PROJECT_NAMESPACE}.yml (where CI_PROJECT_NAMESPACE
> > > > is your gitlab 'namespace', usually username). This file will be
> > > > used instead of the default mainstream set.
> > > 
> > > I find this approach undesirable, because AFAICT, it means you have
> > > to commit this extra file to any of your downstream branches that
> > > you want this to be used for.  Then you have to be either delete it
> > > again before sending patches upstream, or tell git-publish to
> > > exclude the commit that adds this.
> > > 
> > > IMHO any per-contributor overhead needs to not involve committing
> > > stuff to their git branches, that isn't intended to go upstream.
> > 
> > Not just that, ideally, they should also run all the upstream workloads before
> > submitting a PR or posting patches because they'd have to respin because of a
> > potential failure in upstream pipelines anyway.
> 
> It's pretty clear that you want to run the full QEMU CI before submitting
> patches to the QEMU project, but I think we are rather talking about forks
> here that are meant not meant for immediately contributing to upstream
> again, like RHEL where we only build the KVM-related targets and certainly
> do not want to test other things like CPUs that are not capable of KVM, or a
> branch where Philippe only wants to check his MIPS-related work during
> development.
> For contributing patches to upstream, you certainly have to run the full CI,
> but for other things, it's sometimes really useful to cut down the CI
> machinery (I'm also doing this in my development branches manually some
> times to speed up the CI), so I think this series make sense, indeed.

For a downstream like RHEL, I'd just expect them to replace the main
.gitlab-ci.yml entirely to suit their downstream needs.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|