| 1 |
On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 22:44:07 -0500 |
| 2 |
Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> The catalyst-auto automation scripts live in a repo separate from |
| 5 |
> catalyst. That increases the difficulty of changing catalyst's |
| 6 |
> interface, and it doesn't seem to offer any advantages otherwise. |
| 7 |
> (Keeping build specs in a separate repo allows them to be updated |
| 8 |
> independent of catalyst and that is valuable). Additionally, since the |
| 9 |
> primary way catalyst is used is via this automation, it makes sense to |
| 10 |
> support this workflow in catalyst directly. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> But to get there, there are some changes to catalyst that I think are |
| 13 |
> improvements on their own and simplify the path to integrating |
| 14 |
> automation capabilities directly into catalyst. That's what I'd like |
| 15 |
> to discuss here. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I have been thinking for the past few years that the automation could |
| 20 |
benefit from using a buildbot to run the stages. In that way it |
| 21 |
would set the required variables, run the stages in sequence. Upon |
| 22 |
failure, buildbot makes it easy to re-run failed steps from where they |
| 23 |
left off. Or initiate unscheduled builds. It also makes it easy to see |
| 24 |
detailed logs (by anyone with a browser if the buildbot is public |
| 25 |
viewable) of the various steps for debugging, etc.. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Perhaps with your new spec file, you add a varialbe that lists the |
| 29 |
stages to run in sequence. In that way it would preserve the old |
| 30 |
capability of running single stages independantly or a full sequence. |
| 31 |
Or perhaps a cli option to override the setting on an unedited spec |
| 32 |
file. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
ie: |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
[build.stages] |
| 37 |
stage1 |
| 38 |
stage2 |
| 39 |
stage3 |
| 40 |
livecd1 |
| 41 |
livecd2 |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
sorry, not familiar with toml |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
In that way a spec file could be edited simply to restart from any |
| 47 |
point with a single variable edit without removing unused [build.???] |
| 48 |
definitions for the full run. This would be particularly useful when |
| 49 |
troubleshooting hidden/delayed stage build fails. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Overall, I do agree that the releng automation scripts capabilities |
| 53 |
should be part of the caltlyst repo in order for them to be up-to-date |
| 54 |
with catalyst code. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
I have limited time and resources lately, so can't help out much until |
| 57 |
I get back home (probably Xmas) largely due to covid... I only have |
| 58 |
this small laptop and my eyes are not that good to be doing lots of |
| 59 |
work on a tiny 14 inch screen and a stage run to take hours instead |
| 60 |
of minutes... (yes, I got spoiled with 2 28 inch 4K displays, 16-core |
| 61 |
128k ram system at home...) |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
Brian Dolbec |
| 64 |
<dolsen@g.o> |
Archives