On 4/27/20 7:12 AM, Cleber Rosa wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 23:28:21 +0200
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> wrote:
[...]
In some cases custom runners are acceptable. These runners won't be
"gating" but can post informative log and status.
Well, I have the feeling that some people maintaining those runners
will *not* want to have them as "informational" only. If they invest a
good amount of time on them, I believe they'll want to reap the
benefits such as other not breaking the code they rely on. If their
system is not gating, they lose that and may find breakage that CI did
not catch. Again, I don't think "easily accessible" hardware should be
the only criteria for gating/non-gating status.
For instance, would you consider, say, a "Raspberry Pi 4 Model
B", running KVM jobs to be a reproducible runner? Would you blame a
developer that breaks a Gating CI job on such a platform and says that
he can not reproduce it?
I'm not sure I understood the problem, as I'd answer "yes" but I guess
you expect me to say "no"?
[...]
Now the problem is GitLab runner is not natively available on the
architectures listed in this mail, so custom setup is required. A
dumb script running ssh to a machine also works (tested) but lot of
manual tuning/maintenance expected.
That's where I'm trying to help. I built and tested the gitlab-runner
for a number of non-supported environments, and I expect to build
further on that (say contributing code or feedback back to GitLab so
they become official builds?).
Good luck with that, it took more that 2 years to GitLab to officially
support AMD64:
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-runner/-/merge_requests/725
Hopefully the first non-x86 user was the hardest one who had to do all
the bad work, and next architecture might get supported quicker...
Cheers,
- Cleber.
