GitLab and BuildBot
christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
Tue Feb 7 10:31:42 UTC 2023
On 2023-02-07 07:03, Chris Johns wrote:
> 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
> Amar directly.
>> 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.
Maybe my question hasn't been clear enough. Of course part of it depends
on what is implemented. But every selected system also adds limitations.
At the moment BuildBot is the suggested system in the tickets. It is a
well known service and has a lot of usefull features for us that
certainly make it a good choice.
But I never really worked with it, so I basically wanted to know what I
have to expect. Some systems like (I think it was) jenkins.io can be
configured to behave quite different depending on how you use it. You
can either configure it via a static configuration that is put somewhere
where only admins can access it. But you can also configure it in a way
that build jobs are defined by yaml files in the repository similar to
popular services like GitHub, GitLab or Travis.
Basically what I wanted to know is: What is possible / usual with
BuildBot and which of the possible solutions do we want to use? Do we
configure BuildBot statically and every change will be done only if
someone pays for it? Will there be a repo with config files where
everyone can suggest and help but only one or two admins can accept
changes if they have time? Or will every repo contain a config yaml (or
similar format) and every maintainer can accept a change to that? Or is
the currently discussed solution something completely different?
That shouldn't be a pure decision by the one who pays for the work but
one that is (in the optimal case) discussed and specified in the
tickets. That way everyone in the community has at least a chance to
have some influence on the system that he will have to use later.
> 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.
embedded brains GmbH
Herr Christian MAUDERER
email: christian.mauderer at embedded-brains.de
phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 18
mobile: +49-176-152 206 08
Registergericht: Amtsgericht München
Registernummer: HRB 157899
Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler
Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier:
More information about the devel