On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 01:51:57PM +, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> and if at the end the upstream could take care of the Debian packaging, by
> adding a
> .salsa-ci.yml in the upstream directory, in order to have a feedback with
> nice badges ?
That would mean that part of
On 9/16/19 10:03 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>> I know the Ruby team also decided to use debian/salsa-ci.yml instead of
>>> debian/gitlab-ci.yml [2]. I guess we should also do the same.
> This is still an open question:
> https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/issues/86
>
> Debian
On 19-09-15 20 h 31, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> On 19-09-05 01 h 40, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
>> Hello folks!
>>
>> I'd like to propose we start using Salsa CI for all the team packages. I
>> think using a good CI for all our packages will help us find packaging
>> bugs and fix
Raphael Hertzog:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
>> For step 1, I proposed we use the "Salsa Pipeline" [1], as I feel it is
>> the most mature solution, has more contributors and has more features
>> (including reprotest and piuparts). This option seems to have had
Hi,
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> For step 1, I proposed we use the "Salsa Pipeline" [1], as I feel it is
> the most mature solution, has more contributors and has more features
> (including reprotest and piuparts). This option seems to have had the
> most support so far.
Louis-Philippe Véronneau:
> On 19-09-05 01 h 40, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
>> Hello folks!
>>
>> I'd like to propose we start using Salsa CI for all the team packages. I
>> think using a good CI for all our packages will help us find packaging
>> bugs and fix errors before uploads :)
>>
On 15 September 2019 23:01:46 BST, Thomas Goirand wrote:
snip
>This tells "instance_type: g1-small", which doesn't match any name at:
>https://cloud.google.com/compute/vm-instance-pricing
>
>Am I right that this is n1-standard-1, which is 1 VCPU and 3.75 GB?
Nop, this is incorrect you're
On 19-09-05 01 h 40, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> Hello folks!
>
> I'd like to propose we start using Salsa CI for all the team packages. I
> think using a good CI for all our packages will help us find packaging
> bugs and fix errors before uploads :)
>
> I also think that when possible,
On 19-09-15 18 h 01, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 9/15/19 4:10 AM, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
>> On 19-09-14 17 h 35, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> On 9/13/19 11:08 PM, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
On 19-09-13 05 h 57, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 9/5/19 7:40 AM, Louis-Philippe Véronneau
On 9/15/19 4:10 AM, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> On 19-09-14 17 h 35, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 9/13/19 11:08 PM, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
>>> On 19-09-13 05 h 57, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 9/5/19 7:40 AM, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> Hello folks!
>
> I'd like to
On 9/13/19 11:08 PM, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> On 19-09-13 05 h 57, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 9/5/19 7:40 AM, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
>>> Hello folks!
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose we start using Salsa CI for all the team packages. I
>>> think using a good CI for all our packages
On 9/5/19 7:40 AM, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> Hello folks!
>
> I'd like to propose we start using Salsa CI for all the team packages. I
> think using a good CI for all our packages will help us find packaging
> bugs and fix errors before uploads :)
I would agree *IF* and only *IF* we find
Gregor Riepl:
>
>> I am not a fan of pointing to a moving target with the "include" statement:
>>
>> include:
>> - https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/raw/master/salsa-ci.yml
>> -
>> https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/raw/master/pipeline-jobs.yml
>>
>> "master"
> I am not a fan of pointing to a moving target with the "include" statement:
>
> include:
> - https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/raw/master/salsa-ci.yml
> -
> https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/raw/master/pipeline-jobs.yml
>
> "master" will change, and that can
I think we should definitely use Gitlab-CI! The
'salsa-ci-team/pipeline' project does have good coverage, with reprotest
and piuparts. I'm the lead dev on another approach, also part of the
salsa-ci-team, called 'ci-image-git-buildpackage':
Hello folks!
I'd like to propose we start using Salsa CI for all the team packages. I
think using a good CI for all our packages will help us find packaging
bugs and fix errors before uploads :)
I also think that when possible, we should be using the same CI jobs for
our packages. The Salsa CI
16 matches
Mail list logo
