>From my point of view GitHub actions is fine. I don’t think we want to add something that takes so long to install to our image builds.
This isn’t something we really want to maintain but it needed updating for something and it has no one actively maintaining it. I’m not sure if any of our maintainers would be able to build this on ARM and what happens on the next release of the person who built the current one isn’t available. On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 at 09:02, Pierrick Bouvier <pierrick.bouv...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Friday 5 April 2024 at 02:23:47 UTC+4 m...@basilcrow.com wrote: > > While we do encourage first-time contributors, I think it would be > tricky for a first-time contributor to submit a rewrite like this, > because potential problems might not be discovered for several weeks, > at which point the motivation (or funding) to work on the project > might have decreased. While not insurmountable, I think these > challenges have caused me to have a preference for incremental > improvement rather than a rewrite, especially given that the interest > is coming from a first-time contributor. As annoying as it is to delve > into an unfamiliar codebase and write a CI/CD script for an abandoned > codebase, at least the problem is well-defined, and we can be assured > that the result won't break existing use cases. With a rewrite, that > risk increases and I think we would have to be very careful about > review, testing, and (potential) regression management. If a long-time > contributor like yourself proposed to do such a rewrite, I would feel > more comfortable with it, especially if that long-time contributor > promised to be around to deal with any regressions. > > > I agree with this. > On Linaro side, I have a green light to work on existing wimp component, > if you still find interest in it. > If you prefer a full rewrite, just make it clear, so I can let you work on > this. > > I understand the implications of technical debt you mention, and the > existing issues. > > However, this thread was just to add arm64 support. > Is there anyone here that see interest in this? > I reiterate politely my demand: Could we merge the changes required, let > someone trusted (you, or any Jenkins core dev, not me) build the binaries, > commit them, make a new release, and call it a day? > > I can remove all the CI part of this. My goal was simply to prove > objectively that it compiles, and not to open another pandora's box. > I don't care about the tool I use, as long as it provides me what I need > in a finite amount of time (took me only two hours to get a clean GitHub > Actions pipeline). > > Finally, I would just note that on all this thread, and the PR associated, > we never discussed any detail of current arm64 support proposal, but simply > a useless debate about CI A vs B. Maybe it would be more constructive. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Jenkins Developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/e4274c93-124f-49d5-a0c9-fcf50788b46cn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/e4274c93-124f-49d5-a0c9-fcf50788b46cn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAH-3BidcS6NQ5Q%3D_fc2pOACO8zgBibxYCbEB-aBGx_JMB1%3DOaw%40mail.gmail.com.
