On Sat, 28 Dec 2019, Alexander Wirt wrote: > On Thu, 26 Dec 2019, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: > > > Hello! > > > > I've seen many times before statements like these so I'd like to raise > > some discussion around the topic: > > > > pe 13. syysk. 2019 klo 16.36 Bastian Blank (waldi@debian.org) kirjoitti: > > > On Sun, Sep 08, 2019 at 05:35:10PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > > The Salsa CA pipeline is recommended. > > > > > > For this I need to use my veto as Salsa admin. With the CI people we > > > have to work through too much problems first. > The salsa ci pipeline itself has some problematic implementation details > waldi lined out in the past. Afaik nothing changed, we had several reports This is not really true: https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=opened&author_username=waldi Out of 12 issues reported by waldi, 8 have been fixed/closed. Among the remaining ones: - https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/issues/93 (usage of LXC for autopkgtest) is likely the most problematic one even though you never explained what's the real issue... yeah it's virtualization over virtualization and it downloads a root tarball to do its work, but is this worth than downloading a docker image? It uses more resources than direct execution of autopkgtest but it hasn't broken anything so far? - https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/issues/94 (docker images accumulating in forks) this one should have improved a lot AFAIK as GitLab now supports what's required to remove images from the CI environment too and there's WIP on that front (it might even be live without anyone updating that bug, I'm not sure) - https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/issues/116 This one is not clear to me. What jobs are using "docker-in-docker" without any legitimate use ? - https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/issues/121 (split into source and build) This one seems like wishlist and has no real impact on resources as long as we build for a single architecture... > where people telling us things are not possible on our runners. In the end > most of them turned out to be limitations of salsa ci. Salsa ci is also > not very efficent, therefore the veto. Claims like "salsa ci is not very efficient" are not actionable. Bugs like those above are more useful but you should at least take the time to respond to queries of people, otherwise no progress can be made. I don't think that salsa-ci is particularly problematic in terms of "efficiency". With the exception of the LXC usage, there's not much that can be "cut" to save resources. > We are working on it and after my holidays are over I will plan another > sprint for improving salsa. \o/ Cheers, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Raphaël Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/ ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature