[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Help needed: conflicting interests between Salsa admins and Salsa users (Re: Git Packaging Round 2: When to Salsa)



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


Reply to: