Hi, On Tue Nov 5, 2024 at 10:09 PM CET, Serafeim (Serafi) Zanikolas wrote: > hi Diederik, thanks for your suggestions :)
You're welcome :) > On Tue Nov 5, 2024 at 2:50 PM CET, Diederik de Haas wrote: > [..] > > Why not create a Salsa CI job and add it to the default pipeline? > > I think most people who use Salsa's CI use the default pipeline, so this > > seems like a very low friction way of getting people to run adequate > > tests? Maintainers won't have to change anything on their side. > > > > The default pipeline already has a job for autopkgtest (but it doesn't > > seem to run adequate), lintian and piuparts, so it seems like an > > excellent fit. > > that's a great idea! technically, piuparts can run adequate but it's disabled > in > the piuparts job, so I'll give that a try first (we can always fall back to > adding a dedicated adequate job if that causes any issues) I just took a quick look at the piuparts Salsa CI job definition, but I didn't see anything related to adequate? https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/raw/master/salsa-ci.yml But I'd prefer and recommend to make it a separate Salsa CI job and not (try to) integrate it into another. FWIW: not just wrt adequate, but with every (such) job > regardless, until DEP-18 really takes off (and I surely hope it will), I think > it'd still be useful to have an autodep8 test (not least because an > autopkgtest > failure blocks migration to testing, while a broken CI does not) > > tangential sidenote: a package with defined autopkgtests gets baked in > unstable > for 2 days (rather than 5); it'd make sense to me that a package with > configured > and passing CI status should also get that favorable treatment, and a failing > CI > status should block migration to testing) I think CI in general is *very* beneficial, but I'm aware and understand that not everyone is a fan of it or Salsa in general. There's a lot more to it, but it's probably best to leave that out of this discussion. My 0.02
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
