Re: [RFC] Enabling GitLab CI

[David Kastrup]

Jonas Hahnfeld <address@hidden> writes:

> Am Donnerstag, den 21.05.2020, 17:10 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Jonas Hahnfeld <address@hidden> writes:
>> > Am Donnerstag, den 21.05.2020, 15:19 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> > > Jonas Hahnfeld <address@hidden> writes:
>> > > > Am Donnerstag, den 21.05.2020, 14:29 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> > > > > The "traffic jam" problem could be avoided by retaining the option of
>> > > > > pushing to staging.  That would occur without CI, but one could
>> > > > > occasionally trigger the merge with CI on staging to have everything 
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > it migrate to master.  Since staging would be used by the more
>> > > > > experienced people desiring to bunch their work before testing, the
>> > > > > triggering could also happen manually by whoever thinks he has pushed
>> > > > > enough stuff to staging to give it a whirl.
>> > > > 
>> > > > That's not really how CI works. With our policy of FF merges, what
>> > > > happens if some MR get merged directly to master and some sit in
>> > > > staging? You'd probably rebase staging which triggers another CI
>> > > > pipeline and doesn't buy you much.
>> > > 
>> > > It buys you that several commits are bunched in staging and are treated
>> > > in bulk.  At least I think it does.
>> > 
>> > No, it doesn't: The MRs must pass CI individually before it can be
>> > merged.
>> 
>> I did not propose to have CI on staging.
>
> In the current proposal, CI tests those merge requests that target
> master. If we allowed others targeting staging without CI, we would be
> unable to rely on automated testing.

The automated testing would be done upon asking Gitlab to merge staging
into master.

> If we think contention will be a problem, we cannot do the proposal.
> There's no sane "mixed bag": As outlined initially, we would 1)
> require CI for merge requests, and 2) disable direct pushes to
> master. This includes patchy which has no special permissions as far
> as GitLab is concerned.

Sure, it would be the merge request of staging to master that would
trigger the CI then.

> FWIW I don't see much contention at the current rate of development.

Well yes.  And if there were much contention, we'd not likely stay in
the free plan for CI anyway.

> See also my other reply to Han-Wen.

-- 
David Kastrup