Otto Kekäläinen <o...@debian.org> writes:
>> >> i think the barrier is likely to be "i didnt know you could do that?" >> >> rather than "how do i use that?" >> > >> > Salsa CI is and has always been opt-in. >> >> oops - i meant the oppposite, ie make people have to opt out of having >> it run, rather than have to enable it > > A human needs to verify that the pipeline passes when it is activated, > fix disable it or fix things if the CI isn't green. It does not make > sense to activate it unattended, as it would risk causing a lot of > failing pipelines and useless noise and a culture where people loose > respect for "pipeline greenness". I dont really understand this point -- is it based on some empirical evidence? my opinion is that - other than the first "enabling", every pipeline runs unattended - people are not going to gain any "respect" for "pipeline greenness" by hiding the pipeline - commits that fail the pipeline are still bad if the pipeline didnt run, so why hide that information? - if you want people to "respect the pipeline" you want more noise on such bad commits, not less?
