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]

Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:54:01 +0100
From: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@...lbox.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Nikolai Kondrashov <spbnick@...il.com>
Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
 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,
 gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kci-gitlab: Introducing GitLab-CI Pipeline for Kernel
 Testing

On 2024-02-29 21:21, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 01:23, Nikolai Kondrashov <spbnick@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> 
> I really don't want some kind of top-level CI for the base kernel project.
> 
> We already have the situation that the drm people have their own ci
> model. II'm ok with that, partly because then at least the maintainers
> of that subsystem can agree on the rules for that one subsystem.
> 
> I'm not at all interested in having something that people will then
> either fight about, or - more likely - ignore, at the top level
> because there isn't some global agreement about what the rules are.
> 
> For example, even just running checkpatch is often a stylistic thing,
> and not everybody agrees about all the checkpatch warnings.
> 
> I would suggest the CI project be separate from the kernel.

That would be missing a lot of the point / benefit of CI.

A CI system which is separate from the kernel will tend to be out of sync, so it can't gate the merging of changes and thus can't prevent regressions from propagating.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer            |                  https://redhat.com
Libre software enthusiast          |         Mesa and Xwayland developer