Re: no more pullreq processing til February

[Alex Bennée]

Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes:

> On 26/01/2023 15.41, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 14:35, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> I'm confident we can rationalize our jobs, especially the cross
>>> compilation ones.
>>>
>>> For each non-x86 arch we've got two sets of jobs, one for system
>>> emulators and one for user emulators.
>>>
>>> IMHO the most interesting part of non-x86 testing is the TCG
>>> host target. We don't need 2 jobs to cover that, either system
>>> or user emulators would cover TCG build / test. Most of the rest
>>> of code is not heavily host arch dependant.
>> I'm not super enthusiastic about cutting this down.
>> I find the non-x86 testing is the most interesting part
>> of the CI -- most patch submitters and system submaintainers
>> have already done local compile-and-build with the common
>> x86_64 recent-distro target, so those parts pretty much
>> always succeed. The benefit of the auto CI is in keeping
>> the platforms that aren't so widely used by developers
>> working (both different-host-arch and different-OS).
>
> I mostly agree. Question is whether we really need all of them, e.g.
> do we really need both, the *-armel and the *-armhf jobs for both, the
> -user and the -system part? Or would it be still ok to e.g. only have
> a -armel-user and a -armhf-system job and drop the other two?

I suspect just the armhf target is good enough but as you say later...

> I think there are also other possibilities where we could cut down CI
> minutes, e.g.:
>
> - Avoid that some of the -softmmu targets get build multiple
>   times
>
> - Re-arrange the Avocodo jobs: We should maybe rather sort them
>   by target system instead of host distro to avoid that some
>   targets get tested twice here.

We can use tags to select groups of avocado tests I think.

> - Do we really need Linux-based clang jobs if we test Clang
>   compilation with macOS and FreeBSD, too?

Depends - is there any version drift between them?

> - Would it be OK to merge the merge the build-without-default-
>   devices and build-without-default-features jobs?

Sure

>
> And after all, I'd like to raise one question again: Could we finally
> stop supporting 32-bit hosts? ... that would really help to get rid of
> both, some CI minutes and some maintainer burden.

I'm totally down for that. Most distros have put 32 bit onto life
support haven't they?


>
>  Thomas


-- 
Alex Bennée
Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro