Message ID | 20250123135342.1468787-1-vignesh.raman@collabora.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | kci-gitlab: Introducing GitLab-CI Pipeline for Kernel Testing | expand |
On Thu Jan 23, 2025 at 3:53 PM EET, Vignesh Raman wrote: > We are working towards creating a generic, upstream GitLab-CI pipeline > (kci-gitlab) that will replace DRM-CI [1]. The proposed GitLab-CI pipeline > is designed with a distributed infrastructure model, making it possible > to run on any gitLab instance. We plan to leverage KernelCI [2] as the > backend, utilizing its hardware, rootfs, test plans, and KCIDB [3] > integration. Why can't you keep the next version of your great pipeline outside the kernel tree? If there is a legit motivation for doing that, why it needs to be bound to Gitlab? Why can't you make script callable from any CI? BR, Jarkko
On Thu Jan 23, 2025 at 11:30 PM EET, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Thu Jan 23, 2025 at 3:53 PM EET, Vignesh Raman wrote: > > We are working towards creating a generic, upstream GitLab-CI pipeline > > (kci-gitlab) that will replace DRM-CI [1]. The proposed GitLab-CI pipeline > > is designed with a distributed infrastructure model, making it possible > > to run on any gitLab instance. We plan to leverage KernelCI [2] as the > > backend, utilizing its hardware, rootfs, test plans, and KCIDB [3] > > integration. > > Why can't you keep the next version of your great pipeline outside the > kernel tree? > > If there is a legit motivation for doing that, why it needs to be bound > to Gitlab? Why can't you make script callable from any CI? To add, most of the distributions have their CI pipelines but they don't proactively push them over here. BR, Jarkko