CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Thursday 05 January 2017 21:44:23 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> It seems that my previous vocal complaints about system level /
> serious impact dependency bumps on the CI system have gone completely
> unnoticed by (some) members of our Community.
> 
> This was demonstrated earlier this week when components of Plasma
> bumped their version requirements for XKBCommon and Appstream-Qt -
> without even a thought about notifying Sysadmin or checking which
> version the CI had, until their builds broke.
> 
> Neither of these is easy to fix at this stage, as the system base is
> now too old to receive updates such as these. Base upgrades require a
> full rebuild of everything on the CI system, and usually involve
> significant additional churn and is a process that must be done
> roughly twice a year, depending on dependency bump demands.
> 
> Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we may avoid this in the
> future?

I have the impression that the real problem is that it's not the 
developers who are responsible for the CI, but a separate group of 
people (who are doing an awesome job). Consequently, a possible way to 
avoid above problems would be to put the developers of a component in 
charge of the CI for their component (supported, where necessary, by the 
sysadmins). If the developers break their CI, then they have to fix it 
or, if they don't care, then those components are removed from CI.


Regards,
Ingo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20170108/a3dc15a7/attachment.sig>