On Saturday, 31 January 2015 12:20:15 CEST, Inge Wallin wrote:
Given how few of our community who have participated so far, I think it
borders on pure falsehood to claim "clear consensus" on *anything*. I would
put more like "some people want it", and I can certainly see
the appeal.
Fair enough, you have a point -- I suspect there is no consensus that CI is
useful, or that there is any value in having a clean git history without
"fix missing semicolon" commits. I agree that having a per-commit CI
coverage can be well considered an undesirable thing by some developers.
Which is why I have no intention of pushing these to all KDE projects. What
I am proposing is an opt-in for those who care.
But
from that to simply state "the costs in HW are worth it" (and conveniently
forgetting cost in maintenance) is a very long step.
I believe that the cost of maintenance is sufficiently covered by section 5
of the proposal, so I have to admit that I don't know what I am
conventiently forgetting about.
Could you please explain what maintenance cost you are worried about? Is it
perhaps related to the number of build jobs being run, or the number of
throwaway VMs we use for builds? Is it about the services which replace
Jenkins?
The scripting which is currently used for build VMs with Gerrit/Zuul lives
at [1]. The bootstrapping part which turns a downloaded, minimal VM image
into a build node is [2].
Cheers,
Jan
[1] http://quickgit.kde.org/?p=sysadmin%2Fgerrit-project-config.git&a=tree
[2]
http://quickgit.kde.org/?p=sysadmin%2Fgerrit-project-config.git&a=blob&f=turbo-hipster%2Fcloud-init.sh
--
Trojitá, a fast Qt IMAP e-mail client -- http://trojita.flaska.net/
