"Juan A. Suarez Romero" <[email protected]> writes: > On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 16:53 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote: >> "Juan A. Suarez Romero" <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > On Tue, 2018-09-04 at 08:19 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote: >> > > "Juan A. Suarez Romero" <[email protected]> writes: >> > > >> > > > Use scheduled pipelines to update both the base and the LLVM images. >> > > > >> > > > This way allows to have an updated version of the base images even when >> > > > the respect Rockerfiles keep the same. >> > > >> > > I'm curious: does the scheduled build end up only updating the image >> > > used by the normal CI path if the scheduled build passed tests? >> > >> > Yes, it only updates the base + llvm base images; it does not execute any >> > other >> > task. >> >> That sounds like you're actually saying "no" -- the scheduled build >> would upload a new image, even if the new image with updated packages >> can't build Mesa any more. > > Ah, yes, you're right. It only updates the base images, it doesn't try to > check > if Mesa builds or not. As it only updates the packages, and we are using an > LTS > distro in the base, hopefully it shouldn't break the build too many times. And > if this happens, next push in Mesa will expose the problem. > > We have been using approach for several months in our side, and so far we > never > had this situation. But yes, could happen.
OK, if it's LTS I'm a lot less worried, though at that point it feels a little silly to even bother.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
