On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 06:48:08PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 22/08/19 18:31, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > >> With both these points in mind, I think it is pretty hard sell to > >> say we should write & maintain a custom CI system just for QEMU > >> unless it is offering major compelling functionality we can't do > >> without. > > In theory I agree. > > In practice, the major compelling functionality is portability. If it > is true that setting up runners is problematic even on aarch64, frankly > GitLab CI is dead on arrival. If it is not true, then I'd be very happy > to use GitLab CI too.
Sure, I did qualify my statement in the text before that quoted here to say that the patchew would have to offer some compelling feature over GitLab. If GitLab can't be made to work with non-x86 runners, then clearly non-x86 portability is the compelling feature that would make Patchew a sensible option for QEMU. I don't know what the problems are wrt to aarch64 & GitLab but the scheme for connecting new runners to GitLab CI looks pretty flexible when I examined it, so I'd really hope non-x86 is not a show stopper. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
