[Mesa-dev] [Intel-gfx] gitlab.fd.o financial situation and impact on services

Nicolas Dufresne nicolas at ndufresne.ca
Sat Apr 4 17:47:54 UTC 2020

Le samedi 04 avril 2020 à 08:11 -0700, Rob Clark a écrit :
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 7:12 AM Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote:
> > On 2020-03-01 6:46 a.m., Marek Olšák wrote:
> > > For Mesa, we could run CI only when Marge pushes, so that it's a strictly
> > > pre-merge CI.
> > 
> > Thanks for the suggestion! I implemented something like this for Mesa:
> > 
> > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_requests/4432
> > 
> I wouldn't mind manually triggering pipelines, but unless there is
> some trick I'm not realizing, it is super cumbersome.  Ie. you have to
> click first the container jobs.. then wait.. then the build jobs..
> then wait some more.. and then finally the actual runners.  That would
> be a real step back in terms of usefulness of CI.. one might call it a
> regression :-(

On GStreamer side we have moved some existing pipeline to manual mode.
As we use needs: between jobs, we could simply set the first job to
manual (in our case it's a single job called manifest in your case it
would be the N container jobs). This way you can have a manual pipeline
that is triggered in single (or fewer) clicks. Here's an example:


That our post-merge pipelines, we only trigger then if we suspect a

> Is there a possible middle ground where pre-marge pipelines that touch
> a particular driver trigger that driver's CI jobs, but MRs that don't
> touch that driver but do touch shared code don't until triggered by
> marge?  Ie. if I have a MR that only touches nir, it's probably ok to
> not run freedreno jobs until marge triggers it.  But if I have a MR
> that is touching freedreno, I'd really rather not have to wait until
> marge triggers the freedreno CI jobs.
> Btw, I was under the impression (from periodically skimming the logs
> in #freedesktop, so I could well be missing or misunderstanding
> something) that caching/etc had been improved and mesa's part of the
> egress wasn't the bigger issue at this point?
> BR,
> -R

More information about the mesa-dev mailing list