Philippe Mathieu-Daudé writes:
> On 8/22/19 7:05 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 22/08/19 18:50, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>>> * Paolo Bonzini (pbonz...@redhat.com) wrote:
On 22/08/19 18:31, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>> With both these points in mind, I think it is pretty hard
On 8/22/19 7:05 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 22/08/19 18:50, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>> * Paolo Bonzini (pbonz...@redhat.com) wrote:
>>> On 22/08/19 18:31, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> With both these points in mind, I think it is pretty hard sell to
> say we should write & maint
On 22/08/19 18:50, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Paolo Bonzini (pbonz...@redhat.com) wrote:
>> On 22/08/19 18:31, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
With both these points in mind, I think it is pretty hard sell to
say we should write & maintain a custom CI system just for QEMU
unles
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 06:48:08PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 22/08/19 18:31, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> >> With both these points in mind, I think it is pretty hard sell to
> >> say we should write & maintain a custom CI system just for QEMU
> >> unless it is offering major compelling
* Paolo Bonzini (pbonz...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 22/08/19 18:31, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> >> With both these points in mind, I think it is pretty hard sell to
> >> say we should write & maintain a custom CI system just for QEMU
> >> unless it is offering major compelling functionality we c
On 22/08/19 18:31, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>> With both these points in mind, I think it is pretty hard sell to
>> say we should write & maintain a custom CI system just for QEMU
>> unless it is offering major compelling functionality we can't do
>> without.
In theory I agree.
In practice,
* Daniel P. Berrangé (berra...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 07:16:55PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > The two major contenders suggested were:
> >
> > (1) GitLab CI, which supports custom 'runners' which we can set
> > up to run builds and tests on machines we have project access
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 07:16:55PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> The two major contenders suggested were:
>
> (1) GitLab CI, which supports custom 'runners' which we can set
> up to run builds and tests on machines we have project access to
>
> (2) Patchew, which can handle running tests on multi
On 22/08/19 13:04, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 11:50, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> One-off tasks:
>>
>> 1. Create CI runners that offer similar cross-architecture coverage to
>>Peter's current setup. qemu.org has some x86, ppc, and s390 server
>>resources available. I'm no
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 11:50, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> One-off tasks:
>
> 1. Create CI runners that offer similar cross-architecture coverage to
>Peter's current setup. qemu.org has some x86, ppc, and s390 server
>resources available. I'm not sure about ARM and other architectures.
Quic
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 07:16:55PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> We had a conversation some months back about ways we might switch
> away from the current handling of pull requests which I do via some
> hand-curated scripts and personal access to machines, to a more
> automated system that could be
We had a conversation some months back about ways we might switch
away from the current handling of pull requests which I do via some
hand-curated scripts and personal access to machines, to a more
automated system that could be operated by a wider range of people.
Unfortunately that conversation t
12 matches
Mail list logo
