<div dir="auto">For Mesa, we could run CI only when Marge pushes, so that it's a strictly pre-merge CI.<div dir="auto"> </div><div dir="auto">Marek</div></div> <div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat., Feb. 29, 2020, 17:20 Nicolas Dufresne, <<a href="mailto:nicolas@ndufresne.ca">nicolas@ndufresne.ca</a>> wrote: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Le samedi 29 février 2020 à 15:54 -0600, Jason Ekstrand a écrit : > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 3:47 PM Timur Kristóf <<a href="mailto:timur.kristof@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">timur.kristof@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > > On Sat, 2020-02-29 at 14:46 -0500, Nicolas Dufresne wrote: > > > > 1. I think we should completely disable running the CI on MRs which > > > > are > > > > marked WIP. Speaking from personal experience, I usually make a lot > > > > of > > > > changes to my MRs before they are merged, so it is a waste of CI > > > > resources. > > > > > > In the mean time, you can help by taking the habit to use: > > > > > > git push -o ci.skip > > > > Thanks for the advice, I wasn't aware such an option exists. Does this > > also work on the mesa gitlab or is this a GStreamer only thing? > > Mesa is already set up so that it only runs on MRs and branches named > ci-* (or maybe it's ci/*; I can't remember). > > > How hard would it be to make this the default? > > I strongly suggest looking at how Mesa does it and doing that in > GStreamer if you can. It seems to work pretty well in Mesa. You are right, they added CI_MERGE_REQUEST_SOURCE_BRANCH_NAME in 11.6 (we started our CI a while ago). But there is even better now, ou can do: only: refs: - merge_requests Thanks for the hint, I'll suggest that. I've lookup some of the backend of mesa, I think it's really nice, though there is a lot of concept that won't work in a multi-repo CI. Again, I need to refresh on what was moved from the enterprise to the community version in this regard, > > --Jason > > > > > That's a much more difficult goal then it looks like. Let each > > > projects > > > manage their CI graph and content, as each case is unique. Running > > > more > > > tests, or building more code isn't the main issue as the CPU time is > > > mostly sponsored. The data transfers between the cloud of gitlab and > > > the runners (which are external), along to sending OS image to Lava > > > labs is what is likely the most expensive. > > > > > > As it was already mention in the thread, what we are missing now, and > > > being worked on, is per group/project statistics that give us the > > > hotspot so we can better target the optimization work. > > > > Yes, would be nice to know what the hotspot is, indeed. > > > > As far as I understand, the problem is not CI itself, but the bandwidth > > needed by the build artifacts, right? Would it be possible to not host > > the build artifacts on the gitlab, but rather only the place where the > > build actually happened? Or at least, only transfer the build artifacts > > on-demand? > > > > I'm not exactly familiar with how the system works, so sorry if this is > > a silly question. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mesa-dev mailing list > > <a href="mailto:mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org</a> > > <a href="https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev</a> _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list <a href="mailto:mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org</a> <a href="https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev</a> </blockquote></div>