On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:37:44PM +0200, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Ilya, > > Am 16.04.20 um 12:34 schrieb ???? ???????: > > yep, I thought about alpine as well. > > > > I'm not sure how often official docker validation runs. If it runs often > > enough, maybe we do not need CI. > > > > The tests are run for every update of the Dockerfile, thus either for > new HAProxy releases or for Alpine updates. I usually add a `-rc` > version of the Dockerfile for upcoming HAProxy versions once the > development cycle gets close to the end and the versions are expected to > be somewhat stable.
Great, I think it's already quite sufficient. Of course we can always do more and better, but we have to stay reasonable and focus on the sweet spot between the benefits expected from extra test coverage and the infrastructure costs (because at the end of the day someone *has* to pay for all the builds and tests we provoke). I think the CI has brought a lot since it was set up, and our usage is well balanced. Maybe some would consider that it's underexploited, or others woud consider that we're already abusing. My view is that it's OK this way and already helps a lot. I'm more interested by the nasty bugs it allows us to detect (such as non-portable openssl functions or incorrect integer operations on some archs) than just "it fails to build there, we need to add an ifdef", because ultimately even if we break an OS that way, it's instantly detected and trivial to fix. It's always pleasant to detect those in advance, but if they're missed it really does not harm. Detecting the issues around abns seamless on ppc64le was way more useful :-) Cheers, Willy
