Re: [PATCH] CI: limix aws-lc and libressl Quic Interop to "haproxy" only
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 03:58:32PM +0100, William Lallemand wrote: > Subject: Re: [PATCH] CI: limix aws-lc and libressl Quic Interop to "haproxy" > only > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 07:33:03AM +0100, Илья Шипицин wrote: > > generally, I'm fine with either option. Please consult developers who are > > actively involved into QUIC development > > > > ср, 11 дек. 2024 г. в 04:43, Willy Tarreau : > > > > > Hi Ilya, > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 01:35:40PM +0100, Ilia Shipitsin wrote: > > > > those CI is not supposed to run in forks (however, if someone wants, > > > > he can enable it personally) > > > > > > Do these cause any trouble ? I'm asking because some devs use various > > > accounts (including personal) to test their changes before submitting > > > them, so unless it causes any trouble I'd instead prefer that we keep > > > most of them so that contributors have an easy way to test their > > > changes. > > > > > > Willy > > > > > Since this is not about "push" job, this should be fine. > > > -- > William Lallemand I just merged it. -- William Lallemand
Re: [PATCH] CI: limix aws-lc and libressl Quic Interop to "haproxy" only
On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 07:33:03AM +0100, Илья Шипицин wrote: > generally, I'm fine with either option. Please consult developers who are > actively involved into QUIC development > > ср, 11 дек. 2024 г. в 04:43, Willy Tarreau : > > > Hi Ilya, > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 01:35:40PM +0100, Ilia Shipitsin wrote: > > > those CI is not supposed to run in forks (however, if someone wants, > > > he can enable it personally) > > > > Do these cause any trouble ? I'm asking because some devs use various > > accounts (including personal) to test their changes before submitting > > them, so unless it causes any trouble I'd instead prefer that we keep > > most of them so that contributors have an easy way to test their > > changes. > > > > Willy > > Since this is not about "push" job, this should be fine. -- William Lallemand
Re: [PATCH] CI: limix aws-lc and libressl Quic Interop to "haproxy" only
generally, I'm fine with either option. Please consult developers who are actively involved into QUIC development ср, 11 дек. 2024 г. в 04:43, Willy Tarreau : > Hi Ilya, > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 01:35:40PM +0100, Ilia Shipitsin wrote: > > those CI is not supposed to run in forks (however, if someone wants, > > he can enable it personally) > > Do these cause any trouble ? I'm asking because some devs use various > accounts (including personal) to test their changes before submitting > them, so unless it causes any trouble I'd instead prefer that we keep > most of them so that contributors have an easy way to test their > changes. > > Willy >
Re: [PATCH] CI: limix aws-lc and libressl Quic Interop to "haproxy" only
Can someone PLEASE get me off this mailing list? I have tried 3 or 4 times now by using the "list-unsubscribe" address in the e-mail headers, and while I have received the "Reply to this e-mail to confirm" message each time, and I have replied to each of those, I remain subscribed, so clearly there is something broken. I am hoping a list moderator sees this and is able to unsubscribe me from the backend. Thank you. On 2024-12-10 19:43, Willy Tarreau wrote: Hi Ilya, On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 01:35:40PM +0100, Ilia Shipitsin wrote: those CI is not supposed to run in forks (however, if someone wants, he can enable it personally) Do these cause any trouble ? I'm asking because some devs use various accounts (including personal) to test their changes before submitting them, so unless it causes any trouble I'd instead prefer that we keep most of them so that contributors have an easy way to test their changes. Willy
Re: [PATCH] CI: limix aws-lc and libressl Quic Interop to "haproxy" only
ср, 11 дек. 2024 г. в 04:43, Willy Tarreau : > Hi Ilya, > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 01:35:40PM +0100, Ilia Shipitsin wrote: > > those CI is not supposed to run in forks (however, if someone wants, > > he can enable it personally) > > Do these cause any trouble ? I'm asking because some devs use various > accounts (including personal) to test their changes before submitting > them, so unless it causes any trouble I'd instead prefer that we keep > most of them so that contributors have an easy way to test their > changes. > Those scheduled jobs also have a "workflow_dispatch" trigger,thus it is possible to launch a pipeline any time. as for scheduled jobs it would make sense only if developer's fork diverge from master a lot (and scheduled task launched in main repo will differ from fork) > > Willy >
Re: [PATCH] CI: limix aws-lc and libressl Quic Interop to "haproxy" only
Hi Ilya, On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 01:35:40PM +0100, Ilia Shipitsin wrote: > those CI is not supposed to run in forks (however, if someone wants, > he can enable it personally) Do these cause any trouble ? I'm asking because some devs use various accounts (including personal) to test their changes before submitting them, so unless it causes any trouble I'd instead prefer that we keep most of them so that contributors have an easy way to test their changes. Willy