On 9/13/19 11:08 PM, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote: > On 19-09-13 05 h 57, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> On 9/5/19 7:40 AM, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote: >>> Hello folks! >>> >>> I'd like to propose we start using Salsa CI for all the team packages. I >>> think using a good CI for all our packages will help us find packaging >>> bugs and fix errors before uploads :) >> >> I would agree *IF* and only *IF* we find better runners than the one >> currently default in Salsa. The GCE runners are horribly slow (they are >> the smallest to avoid cost). As a result, some tests may just fail >> because of that, and it becomes just frustrating / annoying noise. > > I never experienced such timeouts, but I guess I don't work on very > large packages or things that take more than a few minutes to build.
The issue isn't build time. But when you have unit tests sensitive to timing. See for example openvswitch: https://salsa.debian.org/openstack-team/third-party/openvswitch/pipelines/61713 Oh, in fact, don't ... Salsa doesn't keep artifacts / logs long enough, so you will see nothing. I wonder why the Salsa admins decided on saving them on Google infrastructure then! Or did I misunderstood the way it works? Hard to tell, because we get almost zero communication about this from the admins. > If what you describe really is caused by the default runners not being > fast enough, why couldn't we ask the Salsa team for more powerful ones? > Have you talked to them about this? Since when Salsa admins are receptive to critics and/or suggestions? The last time we told them that using Google wasn't a good idea, they just ignored it. Do you even know how the default runners were provisioned? Who's paying? How much credit do we have? How much can we use them? > It seems to me that spending money in QA like CI runners is very > profitable for the project, as it saves everyone a lot of time dealing > with unnecessary failure caused by lack of tests. It's not like Debian > is a very poor organisation... Indeed. It'd be even better if we could have our own cloud, but nobody in power seem receptive to the idea. Also, please consider what happened the last time someone added 1000+ CI jobs (ie: Salsa went kind of down, and the person who did that got kind of flamed by Salsa admins). At this point in time, I really don't think Salsa is ready for what you proposed, unless we at least: 1/ Take a super big care when adding jobs. 2/ We have our own CI runners. As I wrote, I believe my company could provide a few of these runners (pending my boss approval, who's currently on holidays). However, it'd be nice if my company wasn't the only sponsor... Not only because of financial issues, but at least for redundancy. Your thoughts? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)