On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 10:31:39AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 27/09/2022 23.21, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 04:45:09PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 07:35:13PM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote: > ... > > > > Alright, .gitlab-ci.yml is produced and the pipeline succeeds. > > > > However, the question still remains, where do we keep the generated > > > > artifacts? > > > > > > The following link will always reflect the published artifacts from > > > the most recently fully successful CI pipeline, on the 'qemu-bits' > > > branch, and 'qemu-bits-build' CI job: > > > > > > https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/biosbits-bits/-/jobs/artifacts/qemu-bits/download?job=qemu-bits-build > > > > > > Tweak as needed if you push the CI to master branch instead. This > > > link can be considered the permanent home of the artifact. I'd just > > > suggest that the QEMU job automatically skip if it fails to download > > > the artifact, as occassionally transient infra errors can impact > > > it. > > > > This just means once we change the test old qemu source can no longer use > > it. > > Why is this a good idea? Are we so short on disk space? I thought CPU > > is the limiting factor? > > FYI, we'll soon be short on disk space, gitlab plans to introduce storage > limits: > > https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/faq-paid-storage-transfer/
That's the key reason I prefer the binary as CI artifact rather than in Git. Once checked into git, you can never reclaim that storage usage, as the git repo is append only, only option is to delete the repo and recreate. With CI artifacts we can control exactly which binaries consume storage quota at any time. With 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 :|
