Jonas Hahnfeld <[email protected]> writes: > Am Donnerstag, den 21.05.2020, 17:10 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup: >> Jonas Hahnfeld <[email protected]> writes: >> > Am Donnerstag, den 21.05.2020, 15:19 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup: >> > > Jonas Hahnfeld <[email protected]> writes: >> > > > Am Donnerstag, den 21.05.2020, 14:29 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup: >> > > > > The "traffic jam" problem could be avoided by retaining the option of >> > > > > pushing to staging. That would occur without CI, but one could >> > > > > occasionally trigger the merge with CI on staging to have everything >> > > > > in >> > > > > it migrate to master. Since staging would be used by the more >> > > > > experienced people desiring to bunch their work before testing, the >> > > > > triggering could also happen manually by whoever thinks he has pushed >> > > > > enough stuff to staging to give it a whirl. >> > > > >> > > > That's not really how CI works. With our policy of FF merges, what >> > > > happens if some MR get merged directly to master and some sit in >> > > > staging? You'd probably rebase staging which triggers another CI >> > > > pipeline and doesn't buy you much. >> > > >> > > It buys you that several commits are bunched in staging and are treated >> > > in bulk. At least I think it does. >> > >> > No, it doesn't: The MRs must pass CI individually before it can be >> > merged. >> >> I did not propose to have CI on staging. > > In the current proposal, CI tests those merge requests that target > master. If we allowed others targeting staging without CI, we would be > unable to rely on automated testing.
The automated testing would be done upon asking Gitlab to merge staging into master. > If we think contention will be a problem, we cannot do the proposal. > There's no sane "mixed bag": As outlined initially, we would 1) > require CI for merge requests, and 2) disable direct pushes to > master. This includes patchy which has no special permissions as far > as GitLab is concerned. Sure, it would be the merge request of staging to master that would trigger the CI then. > FWIW I don't see much contention at the current rate of development. Well yes. And if there were much contention, we'd not likely stay in the free plan for CI anyway. > See also my other reply to Han-Wen. -- David Kastrup
