GitLab and BuildBot
chrisj at rtems.org
Tue Feb 7 06:03:12 UTC 2023
On 30/1/2023 10:12 pm, Christian MAUDERER wrote:
> recently the following tickets were added (beneath a few more related ones):
> https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4790 - Setup Gitlab instance
> https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4791 - Update BuildBot
> It's great that a patch review system and a CI/CD that builds every patch for
> RTEMS starts to get within reach. Thanks a lot to all involved in that for the
It is exciting to see this happening. It will benefit the project and all who
give their time.
> I reviewed earlier discussions related to CI/CD. From my point of view there are
> mainly two points that are missing in the tickets:
> First: From my point of view, we should make it simple for new users to
> register. Adding authentication using well-known services can help with that.
> GitLab supports (for example):
> - GitHub: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/integration/github.html
> - GitLab.com: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/integration/gitlab.html
> - Google: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/integration/google.html
> - ...
> I think it would be good to select the most common ones (at least the three
> mentioned above) and add them as a goal to the ticket or a new one. What do you
I suggest a ticket to handle authentication. If you create a ticket please
indicate it is unfunded. If this is handled else where and in another ticket
this one can be closed with a suitable reason.
The addition of these authentication methods can be done when someone funds the
work. If a person or organisation thinks it is important please reach out to
> Second: It's still a bit unclear for me how the CI/CD with BuildBot will work.
> Will it be possible for anyone to help improve the CI/CD? An example to make it
> clear what I want to know: Let's assume an unprivileged developer has a patch
> set that allows building device tree files using the RTEMS build system, but the
> patches require a new tool like dtc. Let's further assume that the idea has been
> discussed and everyone agrees that it is a good idea (currently not yet the case
> for dtc). Problem is: The patches trigger a CI error because the new tool is
> missing and therefore can't be merged yet. How can the developer suggest a fix
> so that the patches can be accepted faster without having to wait for one
> specific maintainer to have enough time for adapting the CI config?
There are details that will need to be worked out. Deployment of tools for
building in a CI flow is important. How complex and automated this will be will
depends on the funding provided. At this point in time the push is to get a
basic framework up that allows us to handle simple merge requests. The approach
is more organic in nature so funding can be targeted at the most important
foundation pieces. Further funding can build on that base. Before we get to
Gitlab and CI we need to rebase the servers and software on them. This part of
the effort is funded and under way. Amar is updating the tickets with the progress.
The hope is gitlab admin activities can be shared. Amar and I have briefly
discussed this but nothing has been decided. We need a gitleb instance before
this becomes something we need to handle.
More information about the devel