On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 12:51:36 +0200 Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 4/27/20 7:12 AM, Cleber Rosa wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 23:28:21 +0200 > > Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> wrote: > [...] > >> In some cases custom runners are acceptable. These runners won't be > >> "gating" but can post informative log and status. > >> > > > > 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. > > > > 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? > > I'm not sure I understood the problem, as I'd answer "yes" but I > guess you expect me to say "no"? > 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. > >> > > > > 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?). > > 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 > 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... > ... and this point is one of the reasons. The other is competition from Travis-CI (and others). Cheers, - Cleber.