On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 12:43 PM Scarlett Moore <
scarlett.gately.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Only on release! We will not be building from master! We don't want
> unstable snaps.
> Thanks,
> Scarlett
>

In that particular case the jobs should be manually triggered only.

Gitlab CI is really made for building artifacts for a given commit rather
than for a specified version though, so this is definitely going to be a
case of things not fitting quite right.

Cheers,
Ben


>
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 4:03 PM Nate Graham <n...@kde.org> wrote:
>
>> On 8/19/23 15:45, Scarlett Moore wrote:
>> > No. It will be telling launchpad to build them via API. Launchpad will
>> > upload to store its own artifacts. Our current setup has launchpad
>> > sending the snaps back to our server and we upload to store. This new
>> > proposal would be significantly less data going back and forth. Also,
>> do
>> > the stable branches really have many commits? I thought once branched
>> to
>> > stable release branch it was done... I reiterate that launchpad is
>> doing
>> > all the heavy lifting including store uploads. Do users download
>> > flatpaks from kde servers? The button says flathub. How do they get
>> there?
>> > Scarlet
>> If Launchpad needs to build our Snaps as a part of the release process,
>> that's something that will need to happen only a few times a year. Apps
>> on FlatHub are similarly built for us by FlatHib infrastructure. It's
>> fine.
>>
>> But asking Launchpad to build us a Snap for every commit is another
>> matter. KDE apps get at least one commit per day just due to
>> translations, and popular apps may get many commits per day and many
>> merge requests. I can think of a large variety of issues that could be
>> caused by asking Launchpad to build Snaps at this much higher frequency
>> level.
>>
>> So can we clarify the proposal? Are you asking to have Launchpad build
>> Snaps as a part of the CI process, for every commit and merge request?
>> Or just as a part of the release process that happens a few times a year?
>>
>> Nate
>>
>

Reply via email to