From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3482AC54FCB for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 14:30:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF503206CD for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 14:30:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="J71KcQzn" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org EF503206CD Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:48026 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jT4lu-0007g7-Ta for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 10:30:10 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55122) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jT4lD-00071B-9f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 10:29:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jT4lB-0005N1-Do for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 10:29:25 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.81]:38089 helo=us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jT4lA-0005AK-Uo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 10:29:25 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1587997763; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=gRtU0gmOFavXoKOs2WjqwJpLiAZ/lkEkPNM1sqbtnT0=; b=J71KcQzn6p5YkHXtIrod3IN5Gls67f1sb8rxN+FLVwUXplExZLJoZ9BkWshIDP+kBepTs1 PpvTjw9fcQxFf4vF3/SHlizoy2TqWfP/netjpMwC45P9NNdd7qhMyUu/WvpnpwG9u0SQcn ekXaVEw7Cc7d0OMXFHvQqvc1nfAXW5g= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-267-LIrFKY70PxGIxJ1jKVj0GA-1; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 10:29:19 -0400 X-MC-Unique: LIrFKY70PxGIxJ1jKVj0GA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51202801504; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 14:29:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (ovpn-112-178.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.112.178]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 940D360C18; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 14:28:41 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 10:28:35 -0400 From: Cleber Rosa To: Philippe =?UTF-8?B?TWF0aGlldS1EYXVkw6k=?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] QEMU Gating CI Message-ID: <20200427102835.6f625859@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <05670290-5ba0-8be0-624b-da1c95f3e820@redhat.com> References: <20200312193616.438922-1-crosa@redhat.com> <1182067639.1655516.1584421185287.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20200317141257.GA5724@localhost.localdomain> <87sgi49uf6.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <529508877.9650370.1587661453005.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <20200423171322.GJ1077680@redhat.com> <69e77a6e-8db8-f617-bfe6-1c8f39ec81b4@redhat.com> <20200427011210.745db351@redhat.com> <05670290-5ba0-8be0-624b-da1c95f3e820@redhat.com> Organization: Red Hat, Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=207.211.31.81; envelope-from=crosa@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/04/26 23:33:12 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 207.211.31.81 X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Fam Zheng , Peter Maydell , Thomas Huth , "Daniel P. =?UTF-8?B?QmVycmFuZ8Op?=" , Beraldo Leal , Erik Skultety , Wainer Moschetta , Markus Armbruster , Wainer dos Santos Moschetta , QEMU Developers , Willian Rampazzo , Alex =?UTF-8?B?QmVubsOpZQ==?= , Eduardo Habkost Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 12:51:36 +0200 Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: > On 4/27/20 7:12 AM, Cleber Rosa wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 23:28:21 +0200 > > Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: > [...] > >> In some cases custom runners are acceptable. These runners won't be > >> "gating" but can post informative log and status. > >> > >=20 > > Well, I have the feeling that some people maintaining those runners > > will *not* want to have them as "informational" only. If they > > invest a good amount of time on them, I believe they'll want to > > reap the benefits such as other not breaking the code they rely on. > > If their system is not gating, they lose that and may find > > breakage that CI did not catch. Again, I don't think "easily > > accessible" hardware should be the only criteria for > > gating/non-gating status. > >=20 > > For instance, would you consider, say, a "Raspberry Pi 4 Model > > B", running KVM jobs to be a reproducible runner? Would you blame a > > developer that breaks a Gating CI job on such a platform and says > > that he can not reproduce it? >=20 > I'm not sure I understood the problem, as I'd answer "yes" but I > guess you expect me to say "no"? >=20 What I mean is: would you blame such a developer for *not* having a machine himself/herself that he/she can try to reproduce the failure? And would you consider a "Raspberry Pi 4 Model B" an easily available hardware? > [...] > >> Now the problem is GitLab runner is not natively available on the > >> architectures listed in this mail, so custom setup is required. A > >> dumb script running ssh to a machine also works (tested) but lot of > >> manual tuning/maintenance expected. > >> > >=20 > > That's where I'm trying to help. I built and tested the > > gitlab-runner for a number of non-supported environments, and I > > expect to build further on that (say contributing code or feedback > > back to GitLab so they become official builds?). >=20 > Good luck with that, it took more that 2 years to GitLab to > officially support AMD64: > https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-runner/-/merge_requests/725 >=20 You mean aarch64, sure. I'm not holding my breath, because we can always have our own binaries/ports (or other executors such as ssh) but I'm optimistic... > Hopefully the first non-x86 user was the hardest one who had to do > all the bad work, and next architecture might get supported quicker... >=20 ... and this point is one of the reasons. The other is competition from Travis-CI (and others). Cheers, - Cleber.