On 22/08/19 18:50, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Paolo Bonzini (pbonz...@redhat.com) wrote: >> On 22/08/19 18:31, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >>>> With both these points in mind, I think it is pretty hard sell to >>>> say we should write & maintain a custom CI system just for QEMU >>>> unless it is offering major compelling functionality we can't do >>>> without. > > (That was Dan's comment) > >> In theory I agree. >> >> In practice, the major compelling functionality is portability. If it >> is true that setting up runners is problematic even on aarch64, frankly >> GitLab CI is dead on arrival. If it is not true, then I'd be very happy >> to use GitLab CI too. > > IMHO if for some weird reason Gitlab has problems on aarch64 then we > just need to get that fixed.
I'm sure it's just some packaging or deployment issue. But https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-runner/merge_requests/725 has been open for more than one year; the last two messages are: * 1 month ago: "I hope we will be able to merge it soon" * 3 weeks ago: "Today I tried use gitlab-runner on my arm64 box, however it kept mysteriously failing" So the question is simply who does the work. Paolo > Dave > >> Paolo >> >>> I'd agree; and I'd also find it useful to have runners setup for >>> Gitlab CI for related things (it would be useful for the virtio-fs >>> stuff); if there are problems on other architectures then we should >>> find some go wranglers to go fix it. > -- > Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK >
