[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAF6AEGtan-bQ7syKAwOKDY=044aKu26SLPQ0j1ieLqXNyQQS3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 07:37:31 -0700
From: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
To: Daniel Stone <daniel@...ishbar.org>
Cc: Helen Koike <helen.koike@...labora.com>, emma@...olt.net,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, david.heidelberg@...labora.com,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
jbrunet@...libre.com, robdclark@...gle.com, corbet@....net,
khilman@...libre.com, sergi.blanch.torne@...labora.com,
gustavo.padovan@...labora.com, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
daniels@...labora.com, martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com,
mripard@...nel.org, anholt@...gle.com,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, robclark@...edesktop.org,
matthias.bgg@...il.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com, neil.armstrong@...aro.org,
guilherme.gallo@...labora.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tzimmermann@...e.de, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10] drm: Add initial ci/ subdirectory
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 10:26 PM Daniel Stone <daniel@...ishbar.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 at 22:47, Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com> wrote:
> > > I did run into a bit of a chicken vs. egg problem with testing the "in
> > > tree" version (compared to earlier versions which kept most of the yml
> > > and scripts in a separate tree), is that it actually requires this
> > > commit to exist in the branch you want to run CI on. My earlier
> > > workaround of pulling the drm/ci commit in via
> > > ${branchname}-external-fixes no longer works.
> >
> > After unwinding some more gitlab repo settings that were for the
> > previous out-of-tree yml setup, I have this working.
> >
> > Tested-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
> > Acked-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
>
> And it's also:
> Acked-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@...labora.com>
>
> It's been back and forth a few times by now and reviewed pretty
> heavily by all the people who are across the CI details. I think the
> next step is to answer all the workflow questions by actually getting
> it into trees and using it in anger. There was some discussion about
> whether this should come in from drm-misc, or the core DRM tree, or a
> completely separate pull, but I'm not sure what the conclusion was ...
> maintainers, thoughts?
I'd prefer a separate pull, so that I could merge it into msm-next as
well without having to pull in all of drm-misc
Possibly some other driver trees would like to do similar?
BR,
-R
Powered by blists - more mailing lists