>lun. 15 juin 2026 at 22:41, Nguyễn Gia Phong <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Cayetano, > > On 2026-06-15 at 14:13+02:00, Cayetano Santos wrote: >> A bit of background. CI farm builds every single pull request (pr) >> which doesn’t impact more than 300 dependent¹: on success, the pr is >> merged in master ... and rebuild back again, consuming computing >> resources (see https://codeberg.org/guix/guix/pulls/9274, for example). > I agree with the sentiment, though I need to note that the reason > topic branches are doing so well is largely thanks to Andreas's > (as much as he wish he needn't have to) effort on overseeing > and ordering them. Absolutely ! We owe a lot to Andreas’ commitment to Guix. > Aside from sharing this branch sitting responsibility across us, > the current FIFO queue is going to mean a reviewed update will land > on master in, optimistically, a month, and someone will have > to resolve the conflict in-time when the branch is at its turn. But this is already currently the case, correct ? This proposal doesn’t change anything at it. > I'm surprised to learn from https://codeberg.org/guix/guix/issues/9098 > that substitutes from CI are not cached, and this seems to be the root > of the problem (not in, we must cache CI outputs, but rather, why > it is not feasible to cache CI outputs). Sure. But this is another independent, more ambitious debate, not included in this proposal. > On QA I'm struggling to get misc-world-rebuild through > because the evaluation keeps dying and we don't have enough disk space > there to keep substitutes between rerun. Again, this is already where we are. Here, I’m not changing anything at it. > I'm just raising the issues so Andreas and Chris (CC'd) can explain > the situation with CI and QA and we can document the constraints > we have on the infrastructure. There are lots of improvements which might be implemented, for sure. But this is not my intention. Here, I’m just proposing to shift the ratio of individual builds towards a common grouped build. That’s it. > Ideally, I think it can help a lot if CI are only started explicitly > by team members after approval instead of running on every PR push. > This way I suppose we can even afford to keep the substitutes. For sure. This is something else which might be implemented. C.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
