On 2/9/19 12:47 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> I also do >> not quite see whatever you want to do with the GitLab CI that >> could not properly handle the bigger repo we have today >> (especially given that Buildbot is today fine with it) > It is not a CI issue. It is a build and testing issue (which is automated > though the CI but that is secondary). > What do you mean buildbot is fine with it? _I_ as a developer am not fine > with buildbot being triggered to run make check on gnunet.git because a gtk+ > widget changes. > I am also not file with buildbot being blocked for half an hour because a > line in gnunet-service-conversation changes. > It is very simple separation of concerns. >
But isn't that simply a question of writing the triggers correctly? I mean, we don't actually re-build gnunet.git because of Gtk+ changes (smokescreen), and I don't see why one couldn't teach the CI to not test transport/ when only conversation/ changed. And I agree that some of our tests simply take too long, but that's more of a question of fixing the test logic (and allowing more of it to run in parallel) for me.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
