linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] kci-gitlab: Introducing GitLab-CI Pipeline for Kernel Testing

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240229-quizzical-persimmon-honeybee-b5db48@houat>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:56:58 +0100
From: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
To: Nikolai Kondrashov <spbnick@...il.com>
Cc: Helen Koike <helen.koike@...labora.com>, linuxtv-ci@...uxtv.org, 
	dave.pigott@...labora.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, gustavo.padovan@...labora.com, pawiecz@...labora.com, 
	tales.aparecida@...il.com, workflows@...r.kernel.org, kernelci@...ts.linux.dev, 
	skhan@...uxfoundation.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, nfraprado@...labora.com, 
	davidgow@...gle.com, cocci@...ia.fr, Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr, laura.nao@...labora.com, 
	ricardo.canuelo@...labora.com, kernel@...labora.com, torvalds@...uxfoundation.org, 
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kci-gitlab: Introducing GitLab-CI Pipeline for
 Kernel Testing

Hi!

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:23:22AM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> On 2/29/24 11:02, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 07:55:25PM -0300, Helen Koike wrote:
> > > Which rating would you select?
> > 
> > 4.5 :)
> > 
> > One thing I'm wondering here is how we're going to cope with the
> > different requirements each user / framework has.
> > 
> > Like, Linus probably want to have a different set of CI before merging a
> > PR than (say) linux-next does, or stable, or before doing an actual
> > release.
> > 
> > Similarly, DRM probably has a different set of requirements than
> > drm-misc, drm-amd or nouveau.
> > 
> > I don't see how the current architecture could accomodate for that. I
> > know that Gitlab allows to store issues template in a separate repo,
> > maybe we could ask them to provide a feature where the actions would be
> > separate from the main repo? That way, any gitlab project could provide
> > its own set of tests, without conflicting with each others (and we could
> > still share them if we wanted to)
> > 
> > I know some of use had good relationship with Gitlab, so maybe it would
> > be worth asking?
> 
> GitLab already supports getting the CI YAML from other repos. You can change
> that in the repo settings.

I'm interested but couldn't find it in the doc, do you have a link to
the right section?

> However, I think a better approach would be *not* to add the .gitlab-ci.yaml
> file in the root of the source tree, but instead change the very same repo
> setting to point to a particular entry YAML, *inside* the repo (somewhere
> under "ci" directory) instead.
> 
> This way all the different subtrees can have completely different setup, but
> some could still use Helen's work and employ the "scenarios" she
> implemented.

I'm worried that this kind of setup will just create duplicated YAML
that will be developped in complete silos and will become difficult to
maintain. But that's definitely an opinion :)

Maxime

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)