Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-92314-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Message-ID: <2c828aa1-d9bb-4b27-844b-a098e206318f@mailbox.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:54:01 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kci-gitlab: Introducing GitLab-CI Pipeline for Kernel
 Testing
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linuxfoundation.org>,
 Nikolai Kondrashov <spbnick@gmail.com>
Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
 Helen Koike <helen.koike@collabora.com>, linuxtv-ci@linuxtv.org,
 dave.pigott@collabora.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
 gustavo.padovan@collabora.com, pawiecz@collabora.com,
 tales.aparecida@gmail.com, workflows@vger.kernel.org,
 kernelci@lists.linux.dev, skhan@linuxfoundation.org,
 kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, nfraprado@collabora.com, davidgow@google.com,
 cocci@inria.fr, Julia.Lawall@inria.fr, laura.nao@collabora.com,
 ricardo.canuelo@collabora.com, kernel@collabora.com,
 gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
References: <20240228225527.1052240-1-helen.koike@collabora.com>
 <20240228225527.1052240-2-helen.koike@collabora.com>
 <20240229-dancing-laughing-groundhog-d85161@houat>
 <5d7ed81b-37f9-48e9-ab7e-484b74ca886c@gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wixVy3WYvjbt43ZSrCqPDsS76QJQSkXFbbPsAOs1MCSAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-CA
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Michel_D=C3=A4nzer?= <michel.daenzer@mailbox.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wixVy3WYvjbt43ZSrCqPDsS76QJQSkXFbbPsAOs1MCSAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 2024-02-29 21:21, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 01:23, Nikolai Kondrashov <spbnick@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> However, I think a better approach would be *not* to add the .gitlab-ci.yaml
>> file in the root of the source tree, but instead change the very same repo
>> setting to point to a particular entry YAML, *inside* the repo (somewhere
>> under "ci" directory) instead.
> 
> I really don't want some kind of top-level CI for the base kernel project.
> 
> We already have the situation that the drm people have their own ci
> model. II'm ok with that, partly because then at least the maintainers
> of that subsystem can agree on the rules for that one subsystem.
> 
> I'm not at all interested in having something that people will then
> either fight about, or - more likely - ignore, at the top level
> because there isn't some global agreement about what the rules are.
> 
> For example, even just running checkpatch is often a stylistic thing,
> and not everybody agrees about all the checkpatch warnings.
> 
> I would suggest the CI project be separate from the kernel.

That would be missing a lot of the point / benefit of CI.

A CI system which is separate from the kernel will tend to be out of sync, so it can't gate the merging of changes and thus can't prevent regressions from propagating.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer            |                  https://redhat.com
Libre software enthusiast          |         Mesa and Xwayland developer