Re: [PATCH 1/3] kci-gitlab: Introducing GitLab-CI Pipeline for Kernel Testing

From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
Cc: Nikolai Kondrashov <spbnick@gmail.com>,
	Helen Koike <helen.koike@collabora.com>,
	linuxtv-ci@linuxtv.org, dave.pigott@collabora.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, gustavo.padovan@collabora.com,
	pawiecz@collabora.com, tales.aparecida@gmail.com,
	workflows@vger.kernel.org, kernelci@lists.linux.dev,
	skhan@linuxfoundation.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
	nfraprado@collabora.com, davidgow@google.com, cocci@inria.fr,
	Julia.Lawall@inria.fr, laura.nao@collabora.com,
	ricardo.canuelo@collabora.com, kernel@collabora.com,
	torvalds@linuxfoundation.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kci-gitlab: Introducing GitLab-CI Pipeline for Kernel Testing
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:05:05 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240229100505.GB30889@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240229-quizzical-persimmon-honeybee-b5db48@houat>

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 10:56:58AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:23:22AM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > 
> > On 2/29/24 11:02, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 07:55:25PM -0300, Helen Koike wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > 
> > GitLab already supports getting the CI YAML from other repos. You can change
> > that in the repo settings.
> 
> I'm interested but couldn't find it in the doc, do you have a link to
> the right section?

e.g. https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/camera/libcamera/-/settings/ci_cd

Expand "General pipelines", the setting is "CI/CD configuration file".
You can specify the path to a file in the local repository, or in a
separate repository. See
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/help/ci/pipelines/settings#specify-a-custom-cicd-configuration-file
for the syntax.

> > However, I think a better approach would be *not* to add the .gitlab-ci.yaml
> > file in the root of the source tree, but instead change the very same repo
> > setting to point to a particular entry YAML, *inside* the repo (somewhere
> > under "ci" directory) instead.
> > 
> > This way all the different subtrees can have completely different setup, but
> > some could still use Helen's work and employ the "scenarios" she
> > implemented.
> 
> I'm worried that this kind of setup will just create duplicated YAML
> that will be developped in complete silos and will become difficult to
> maintain. But that's definitely an opinion :)

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart