Interesting indeed. Maybe its because of the the multistage build when
it comes to the non working job. That's the only big difference I see
between the 2.
> Yes, pretty much.
> Interesting is, that for the other job based on fedora 38 the cache works,
> see e.g.
> working:
> https://github.co
Yes, pretty much.
Interesting is, that for the other job based on fedora 38 the cache works,
see e.g.
working:
https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/actions/runs/6560633128/job/17818675001#step:7:117
not working:
https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/actions/runs/6560633128/job/17818674503#step:7:182
Matthias
On W
> It looks like this is a docker container, this could possibly be cached in
> the ghcr?
It's part of the qgis3-qt5-build-deps.dockerfile [0] which is built with a
cache github action [1]. But looking at the log, it doesn't look like cache
is at work, everything seems to be downloaded and built
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 9:11 AM Julien Cabieces <
julien.cabie...@oslandia.com> wrote:
>
> > Is there anything I've missed?
>
>
> A missing external ressource (OTB, oracle binaries...) that we get with
> curl. This one for
> instance recently :
>
> https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/actions/runs/6549790
> Is there anything I've missed?
A missing external ressource (OTB, oracle binaries...) that we get with curl.
This one for
instance recently :
https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/actions/runs/6549790513/job/17793674746?pr=54963
Maybe we could store those ressources somewhere (a github repository for
On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 9:19 PM Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer <
qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
> >
> > IMHO, the main issue here is that the CI is too often broken for no
> > reasons related to the PR content. And most of the time recently, it's
> > because of one of the mingw jobs.
>
>
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 08:18:46AM +1300, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer wrote:
> >
> > IMHO, the main issue here is that the CI is too often broken for no
> > reasons related to the PR content. And most of the time recently, it's
> > because of one of the mingw jobs.
>
> I suggest we move this c
>
> IMHO, the main issue here is that the CI is too often broken for no
> reasons related to the PR content. And most of the time recently, it's
> because of one of the mingw jobs.
I suggest we move this conversation into more practical areas and
focus instead on the actual CI issues.
In my exper
Hi,
Even if it's sometime painful to wait for a review, I completely suscribe
to the actual processus of review by another peer for the reasons
well explained by others.
IMHO, the main issue here is that the CI is too often broken for no
reasons related to the PR content. And most of the time r
In my experience, the peer reviews have proven to be an effective tool to
improve the code quality.
I think it can be explained with a four eyes principle. The first two eyes
are involved in writing the code, the second pair of eyes that validates
needs to be a trusted pair.
For a code base of the
On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 03:08:34PM +1300, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 03:41, Sandro Santilli wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 09:59:35AM +1300, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If you flip the situation, you'll see that yes, you do hav
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 03:41, Sandro Santilli wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 09:59:35AM +1300, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer
> wrote:
>
> > If you flip the situation, you'll see that yes, you do have trust!
> >
> > - a complete stranger CANNOT approve their own changes
> > - a complete stra
ssage d'origine-
De : QGIS-Developer De la part de
Sandro Santilli via QGIS-Developer
Envoyé : 16 octobre 2023 10:57
À : Nyall Dawson ; qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
Objet : Re: [QGIS-Developer] QGIS repository management
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 04:41:42PM +0200, Sandro Santilli via Q
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 04:41:42PM +0200, Sandro Santilli via QGIS-Developer
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 09:59:35AM +1300, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer
> wrote:
>
> > If you flip the situation, you'll see that yes, you do have trust!
> >
> > - a complete stranger CANNOT approve their ow
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 09:59:35AM +1300, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer wrote:
> If you flip the situation, you'll see that yes, you do have trust!
>
> - a complete stranger CANNOT approve their own changes
> - a complete stranger CANNOT approve other stranger's changes
> - a complete stranger
As someone on the outside of the committer set (which is fine!) for
qgis, but familiar with the larger issues (and a packager):
I'm going to use the word committer. git has renamed things, but the
point is of course placing state in the branch that matters in the
repo that matters.
There
For completeness:
> - an approved member CANNOT approve their own changes
> - an approved member CAN approve a complete stranger's changes
> - an approved member CAN approve a another approved member's changes
A potential issue which has popped up a couple of times is whether
it's acceptable for
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 09:44, Sandro Santilli wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 08:58:30AM +1300, Nyall Dawson wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 at 05:43, Sandro Santilli wrote:
> >
> > > 2. Allow those with "write access" to self-approve PRs
> >
> > -1. What's the real motivation here? Why the ur
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 09:04:38AM +1300, Nyall Dawson wrote:
> I have this power too -- and I use it on a daily basis to keep the whole CI
> setup flowing (ie restarting workflows in other's PRs, merging approved PRs
> when an unrelated workflow failure has blocked a merge, etc).
>
> I'd like to
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 08:58:30AM +1300, Nyall Dawson wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 at 05:43, Sandro Santilli wrote:
>
> > 2. Allow those with "write access" to self-approve PRs
>
> -1. What's the real motivation here? Why the urgency to get unreviewed code
> into QGIS?
A recent example of
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 at 02:54, Sandro Santilli via QGIS-Developer <
qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>
> That term "committer", btw, should probably be changed nowadays as
> with git it doesnt' make much sense.
+1. Maybe we should go with "review approver" to reflect exactly what this
privile
> A small group of us (3-4 developers including me) have admin access to
> all QGIS repositories and we can bypass any check and merge all PRs
> without approval.
I have this power too -- and I use it on a daily basis to keep the whole CI
setup flowing (ie restarting workflows in other's PRs, merg
Hi Sandro,
Thanks for raising this discussion. I'll add my knowledge inline below.
But please keep in mind that all this stuff has just been set over time in
a reactionary/evolutionary process to keep things running smoothly, rather
than something which was designed and formalised by a committee
Hi Alessandro, replies inline
On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 11:17:27AM +0200, Alessandro Pasotti wrote:
> I understand your frustration, CI is often failing for no reason and
> we are wasting a lot of time (and CPU power) to re-run the failing
> workflows, any effort to fix these issues is greatly appr
Hi Sandro,
Disclaimer: these are my personal opinions and not the official PSC position.
I understand your frustration, CI is often failing for no reason and
we are wasting a lot of time (and CPU power) to re-run the failing
workflows, any effort to fix these issues is greatly appreciated.
About
25 matches
Mail list logo
