On Mon, 30 Dec 2019, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > 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? that second level of virtualisation caused problems where people told us they are not able to do things in their ci jobs. *snip* > > 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. Thats probably true, but if it is inefficent and may cause problems on our current architecture / ressources - that can't get fixed easily - a veto is the only thing we have. > > We are working on it and after my holidays are over I will plan another > > sprint for improving salsa. > > \o/ Alex - forgive the shortness, I am on vacation
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature