Re: [Mesa-dev] [Intel-gfx] gitlab.fd.o financial situation and impact on services

["Marek Olšák" <maraeo@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3411 bytes --]

For Mesa, we could run CI only when Marge pushes, so that it's a strictly
pre-merge CI.

Marek

On Sat., Feb. 29, 2020, 17:20 Nicolas Dufresne, <nicolas@ndufresne.ca>
wrote:

> Le samedi 29 février 2020 à 15:54 -0600, Jason Ekstrand a écrit :
> > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 3:47 PM Timur Kristóf <timur.kristof@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2020-02-29 at 14:46 -0500, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:
> > > > > 1. I think we should completely disable running the CI on MRs which
> > > > > are
> > > > > marked WIP. Speaking from personal experience, I usually make a lot
> > > > > of
> > > > > changes to my MRs before they are merged, so it is a waste of CI
> > > > > resources.
> > > >
> > > > In the mean time, you can help by taking the habit to use:
> > > >
> > > >   git push -o ci.skip
> > >
> > > Thanks for the advice, I wasn't aware such an option exists. Does this
> > > also work on the mesa gitlab or is this a GStreamer only thing?
> >
> > Mesa is already set up so that it only runs on MRs and branches named
> > ci-* (or maybe it's ci/*; I can't remember).
> >
> > > How hard would it be to make this the default?
> >
> > I strongly suggest looking at how Mesa does it and doing that in
> > GStreamer if you can.  It seems to work pretty well in Mesa.
>
> You are right, they added CI_MERGE_REQUEST_SOURCE_BRANCH_NAME in 11.6
> (we started our CI a while ago). But there is even better now, ou can
> do:
>
>   only:
>     refs:
>       - merge_requests
>
> Thanks for the hint, I'll suggest that. I've lookup some of the backend
> of mesa, I think it's really nice, though there is a lot of concept
> that won't work in a multi-repo CI. Again, I need to refresh on what
> was moved from the enterprise to the community version in this regard,
>
> >
> > --Jason
> >
> >
> > > > That's a much more difficult goal then it looks like. Let each
> > > > projects
> > > > manage their CI graph and content, as each case is unique. Running
> > > > more
> > > > tests, or building more code isn't the main issue as the CPU time is
> > > > mostly sponsored. The data transfers between the cloud of gitlab and
> > > > the runners (which are external), along to sending OS image to Lava
> > > > labs is what is likely the most expensive.
> > > >
> > > > As it was already mention in the thread, what we are missing now, and
> > > > being worked on, is per group/project statistics that give us the
> > > > hotspot so we can better target the optimization work.
> > >
> > > Yes, would be nice to know what the hotspot is, indeed.
> > >
> > > As far as I understand, the problem is not CI itself, but the bandwidth
> > > needed by the build artifacts, right? Would it be possible to not host
> > > the build artifacts on the gitlab, but rather only the place where the
> > > build actually happened? Or at least, only transfer the build artifacts
> > > on-demand?
> > >
> > > I'm not exactly familiar with how the system works, so sorry if this is
> > > a silly question.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > mesa-dev mailing list
> > > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
> > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4787 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel