Re: [Pixman] Pushing unreviewed patches to the pixman git repository
On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 00:28 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On a similar topic: now that we have the gitlab instance, how do we go > about enabling the reftests to be run automatically? You push, and it happens: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pixman/pixman/-/jobs The change to enable this was unreviewed; mea maxima culpa. There's no magic in it, at least: --- commit 9034d0cc3241c56cbe3bdbc98247a68e3529ee48 (gitlab/ci, tmp, ci) Author: Adam Jackson Date: Thu May 31 12:32:18 2018 -0400 ci: Add .gitlab-ci.yml Just builds on Fedora 28 for x86_64 at the moment, but it's a start. Credit to Daniel Stone for eliminating the nested docker image. Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson diff --git a/.gitlab-ci.yml b/.gitlab-ci.yml new file mode 100644 index 000..b506ca3 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitlab-ci.yml @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +image: fedora:28 + +job: +script: +- dnf -y install dnf-plugins-core +- dnf -y groupinstall buildsys-build +- dnf -y builddep pixman +- ./autogen.sh +- make -sj4 check \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/contrib/ci.sh b/contrib/ci.sh new file mode 100755 index 000..48b3e77 --- /dev/null +++ b/contrib/ci.sh @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ +#!/bin/sh + +set -ex + +./autogen.sh +make -sj4 check --- D'oh, ought to call ci.sh from the script: section. If you make your own fork of the repo, it'll automatically have CI enabled too, so anything you push will get tested. One thing I wanted to look into was getting enough of a qemu-user and cross-compiler environment to be able to test on at least emulated non-x86. - ajax ___ Pixman mailing list Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
Re: [Pixman] Pushing unreviewed patches to the pixman git repository
Quoting Matt Turner (2018-06-06 23:55:39) > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 6:06 PM, Siarhei Siamashka > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I noticed that some people with commit access started pushing patches > > to the pixman git repository without giving the pixman mailing list > > subscribers any reasonable chance to review them: > > > > https://cgit.freedesktop.org/pixman/commit/?id=8b95e0e460baa499e54c19d29bf761d34c25badc > > https://cgit.freedesktop.org/pixman/commit/?id=bd2b49185b28c5024597a5e530af9fc25de3193a > > > > Yes, these fixes were trivial. But still it would be more polite to > > actually post patches to the mailing list, collect some reviews and > > then *wait* at least severaldays before pushing them to the repository > > (unless the issue is really urgent). Not everyone constantly monitors > > the mailing list and is able to provide an instant response. > > I hope you don't consider those two patches to be similar cases. > > One was committed without going to the mailing list by someone with > one patch in pixman every 5 years. > > The other was was sent to the mailing list by a person with plenty of > pixman contributions and reviewed by two people. In Mesa we wait 24 > hours, for the reasons you describe. Looks like it was close to 24 > hours in this case. > > I'm happy to wait more than 24 hours in the future -- that's no > problem. I'm just taking issue with the suggestion that the two cited > examples are somehow the same. On a similar topic: now that we have the gitlab instance, how do we go about enabling the reftests to be run automatically? -Chris ___ Pixman mailing list Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
Re: [Pixman] Pushing unreviewed patches to the pixman git repository
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 6:06 PM, Siarhei Siamashka wrote: > Hello, > > I noticed that some people with commit access started pushing patches > to the pixman git repository without giving the pixman mailing list > subscribers any reasonable chance to review them: > > https://cgit.freedesktop.org/pixman/commit/?id=8b95e0e460baa499e54c19d29bf761d34c25badc > https://cgit.freedesktop.org/pixman/commit/?id=bd2b49185b28c5024597a5e530af9fc25de3193a > > Yes, these fixes were trivial. But still it would be more polite to > actually post patches to the mailing list, collect some reviews and > then *wait* at least severaldays before pushing them to the repository > (unless the issue is really urgent). Not everyone constantly monitors > the mailing list and is able to provide an instant response. I hope you don't consider those two patches to be similar cases. One was committed without going to the mailing list by someone with one patch in pixman every 5 years. The other was was sent to the mailing list by a person with plenty of pixman contributions and reviewed by two people. In Mesa we wait 24 hours, for the reasons you describe. Looks like it was close to 24 hours in this case. I'm happy to wait more than 24 hours in the future -- that's no problem. I'm just taking issue with the suggestion that the two cited examples are somehow the same. ___ Pixman mailing list Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
