BTW: You might want to update petscgitbash to check if a rebase is needed before it starts a test pipeline..
This might need a modified version of ./lib/petsc/bin/maint/check-ci-settings.sh ['git fetch --unshallow ...' is for the clones created by gitlab-ci] Satish On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Satish Balay via petsc-dev wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Barry Smith wrote: > > > > > The issue was when a machine went down we suddenly unknowningly had to > > rebase against some strange branch before running the pipeline. That was > > not a good work flow. Perhaps Satish fixed it so master and maint are > > adjusted when a machine goes down hence no strange branches to merge > > against. > > This was my attempt to work-around - until I pushed a better tested change to > maint/master. It clearly didn't work. So I pushed my change to maint [which > forced a rebase] - triggering this email thread. > > And the issue here is - do you want pipelines to succeed [and be ready for > merge - when some tests are not working and ignored. And when they do come > back - maint/master would be broken. > > > > > I do think a model that "just worked" when a machine went down without > > needing to change the .gitlab-ci file would be better. If I remember > > vaguely can't every enry in .gitlab-ci be marked as "skip if the runner is > > not available". Can we adopt that model? We may have tried it before and > > were not happy with it? > > Then there won't be any test failures per CI - an one would have to check > every failed job manually to verify if should be ignored or nor. > > > > One way to do this is with redundancy [of machines - where same test would > work on either machine] - which we don't have for all OSes.. > > I think saving rebases is the wrong goal here.. Its cheap - its > easy.[compared to other issues], and reorganizing to a more complicated CI to > save this doesn't sound right. And there are many other reasons CI will > change - not just machines going down.. > > Satish > > > > > Barry > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 2020, at 12:19 AM, Jed Brown <j...@jedbrown.org> wrote: > > > > > > Satish Balay via petsc-dev <petsc-dev@mcs.anl.gov> writes: > > > > > >> say - you reorganized some configure code - and changed with-x to > > >> with-x11 > > >> > > >> This means the corresponding change should also be config/*.py - for > > >> tests not to break. [but other branches would still have to use whats > > >> valid for them]. > > >> > > >> So encoding examples/*.py a single/remote gitlab-ci.yaml just creates > > >> more problems > > > > > > I thought Barry was just proposing inlining the configure options into > > > .gitlab-ci.yml, which I think would work fine, but also don't clearly see > > > a point. > > > > > >> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Barry Smith wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> I see, the way it is now each test case in the .gitlab file is > > >>> hardwired to an examples/*.py maybe we should just delete the > > >>> examples/*.py and put them directly in the yaml file. > > >
