Re: [PATCH 1/3] kci-gitlab: Introducing GitLab-CI Pipeline for Kernel Testing

["Michel Dänzer" <michel.daenzer@mailbox.org>]

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