Re: [RFC] General Resolution to deploy tag2upload
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 at 14:49, Ian Jackson
<ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Timo Röhling writes ("Re: [RFC] General Resolution to deploy tag2upload"):
> > Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> [2024-06-13 14:23]:
> > >As far as I understand in the current proposal the trigger is a
> > >webhook running on Salsa after a push - have you considered instead
> > >having the trigger be a stage in the salsa-ci pipeline, that would run
> > >after the previous stages have completed successfully?
> >
> > I hate that idea. From past experience, the Salsa CI pipeline is
> > slower and much more flaky than the buildds, so I'm not going to
> > spend several hours (and retries) per upload waiting to see if the
> > Salsa CI deemed my upload worthy.
>
> I hope Luca wasn't suggesting that Salsa CI as a blocker ought to be
> mandatory. Like so many things in this space, some people love what
> others hate.
I was not, I wasn't suggesting to make this a hard requirement, as you
say that's more complicated. Merely moving the fire-and-forget webhook
as the last stage of the pipeline, as the default
setting/setup/config/whatever. This is not to provide strong
guarantees, but merely an easy default that encourages a QA pass
first. Then maintainers can override the pipeline config and skip it,
if they don't want it for any reason. If it was the default, I suspect
de-facto the majority of uploads would go through it, and we would
gain in quality, on average (exceptions apply, etc etc).
Reply to: