canonical-ci-engineering team mailing list archive

[Francis Ginther <francis.ginther@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Forwarding this on to the wider CI team -
canonical-ci-engineering@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On a first look, most of these appear to be doable via job configuration
changes. And as you pointed out a couple of the jobs are mislabled or
misconfigured (kdub identified that the current phone test is building
vivid packages, but installing on a wily image, this needs to be fixed). I
expect we can get this problems addressed first and start moving on to
these other updates.

Francis

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Kevin Gunn <kevin.gunn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Hey Francis -
> I wanted to start a conversation with you as I think you might already be
> chasing some of this and you're probably the right person.
> So it dawned on me through the ci hiccups from gcc5 transition, that what
> we would want in an ideal world is projects tested on all supported
> platforms/archives with some relative priority attached.
> Meaning for example....
> #1 priorities - really should never be broken
> vivid+overlay armhf (any real phone hw)
> wily armhf (any real phone hw)
> wily i386
> wily amd64
>
> #2 priorities - should warn if broken
> wily arm64
> vivid on amd64
> vivid on i386
>
> #3 proiorities - nice to have
> vivid on armhf (not necessarily phone hw)
>
> I think at the moment there are projects like unity8 & mir that are only
> using wily - so no vivid+overlay coverage. Which is really not good for our
> desire and push for quality on phone programs. When we were dual landing
> and wily & vivid+o were very close then no problem....but the toolchain
> alone now is good reason to address this. NOTE: also mir jobs are still
> labled "vivid" even thot they're using wily (which i'm guessing you've
> probably noticed)
>
> At any rate I'm raising this because I think not only my team's projects
> but the wider org should all be following the outline above. e.g. teams
> belonging to bfiller, dbarth, bzoltan, etc
>
> Let me know what you think.
> Also, let me know if we can mix archive targets within a project ci ? I
> would suppose it would be up to the job definition - so i would think we
> can do this.
>
> And I hate to be this way, but that lack of coverage for vivid+o is to me
> so concerning I feel like we need to address this asap (even tho self
> service ci may be coming, i think not quick enough to make sure we close
> this gap)
> Also, I am happy for my teams to help with proj ci job management if
> needed...i would think other teams would be as well.
>
> br,kg
>



-- 
Francis Ginther
Canonical - Ubuntu Engineering - Continuous Integration Team