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

[Erik Faye-Lund]

On Fri, 2020-02-28 at 10:43 +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 10:06, Erik Faye-Lund
> <erik.faye-lund at collabora.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-02-28 at 11:40 +0200, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
> > > Yeah, changes on vulkan drivers or backend compilers should be
> > > fairly
> > > sandboxed.
> > > 
> > > We also have tools that only work for intel stuff, that should
> > > never
> > > trigger anything on other people's HW.
> > > 
> > > Could something be worked out using the tags?
> > 
> > I think so! We have the pre-defined environment variable
> > CI_MERGE_REQUEST_LABELS, and we can do variable conditions:
> > 
> > https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/yaml/#onlyvariablesexceptvariables
> > 
> > That sounds like a pretty neat middle-ground to me. I just hope
> > that
> > new pipelines are triggered if new labels are added, because not
> > everyone is allowed to set labels, and sometimes people forget...
> 
> There's also this which is somewhat more robust:
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/merge_requests/2569
> 
> 

I'm not sure it's more robust, but yeah that a useful tool too.

The reason I'm skeptical about the robustness is that we'll miss
testing if this misses a path. That can of course be fixed by testing
everything once things are in master, and fixing up that list when
something breaks on master.

The person who wrote a change knows more about the intricacies of the
changes than a computer will ever do. But humans are also good at
making mistakes, so I'm not sure which one is better. Maybe the union
of both?

As long as we have both rigorous testing after something landed in
master (doesn't nessecarily need to happen right after, but for now
that's probably fine), as well as a reasonable heuristic for what
testing is needed pre-merge, I think we're good.