[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t v2] Add GitLab's CI/CD configuration

[Daniel Vetter]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:24 PM Arkadiusz Hiler
<arkadiusz.hiler at intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 04:18:56PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:15 PM Arkadiusz Hiler
> > <arkadiusz.hiler at intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 03:09:04PM +0300, Arkadiusz Hiler wrote:
> > > > The CI/CD pipeline is configured the following way:
> > > >  1. Build docker images and add them to repo's registry (manual step for
> > > >     now, automation needs GitLab to be updated).
> > > >  2. Build igt with meson on Debian and Fedora.
> > > >  3. Run `ninja tests` on Fedora.
> > > >  4. Build and publish docs as an artifact, for GitLab Pages.
> > > >
> > > > v2: Typos and fully-featured meson build.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Petri Latvala <petri.latvala at intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hiler at intel.com>
> > >
> > > Both images are already in our registry.
> > >
> > > Here you can see the pipline running (on a testing branch):
> > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/igt-gpu-tools/pipelines/6292
> >
> > I think the "proper" gitlab way of doing this is not through a
> > temporary branch, but through a merge request. Or a personal fork.
> > Gives you the exact same amount of gitlab-ci testing as a branch. Just
> > an aside, figure we'll start with the process bikeshedding right away
> > :-)
> > -Daniel
>
> I was playing with that on my fork, but the issue was that I would have
> to change the paths to registry each time I send a patch and push it to
> my repo. Too annoying, so I went with a temporary branch.

If you do an MR, does it work better?
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch