On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 17:34, Cleber Rosa wrote:
> So, I think the reason for the skip (there's an open issue on GitLab
> itself about not communicating to users the reason) is that GitLab
> does a late evaluation of the job condition. For those jobs the
> condition is:
>
>rules:
>- if: '
On 7/28/20 6:33 PM, Cleber Rosa wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 05:08:50PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 16:51, Cleber Rosa wrote:
>>>
...
OTOH I can't see anything on that web page that suggests that
it's submitting jobs to the s390 or aarch64 boxes -- is it
>>>
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 05:08:50PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 16:51, Cleber Rosa wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 03:48:38PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 18:22, Cleber Rosa wrote:
> > > > Sure. It's important that PATCH 2/2 in this seri
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 05:15:17PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 12:13:06PM -0400, Cleber Rosa wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 03:51:34PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 03:48:38PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 20 Jul 2020
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 12:13:06PM -0400, Cleber Rosa wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 03:51:34PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 03:48:38PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 18:22, Cleber Rosa wrote:
> > > > Sure. It's important that PATCH 2/2
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 03:51:34PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 03:48:38PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 18:22, Cleber Rosa wrote:
> > > Sure. It's important that PATCH 2/2 in this series is included in a
> > > branch that you need to push to
On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 16:51, Cleber Rosa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 03:48:38PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 18:22, Cleber Rosa wrote:
> > > Sure. It's important that PATCH 2/2 in this series is included in a
> > > branch that you need to push to the "staging" b
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 03:48:38PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 18:22, Cleber Rosa wrote:
> > Sure. It's important that PATCH 2/2 in this series is included in a
> > branch that you need to push to the "staging" branch on the
> > https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu repo (
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 03:48:38PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 18:22, Cleber Rosa wrote:
> > Sure. It's important that PATCH 2/2 in this series is included in a
> > branch that you need to push to the "staging" branch on the
> > https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu repo (
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 18:22, Cleber Rosa wrote:
> Sure. It's important that PATCH 2/2 in this series is included in a
> branch that you need to push to the "staging" branch on the
> https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu repo (it could be just that one
> patch). Then, you can run:
>
> ./scripts
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 05:18:54PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 03:47, Cleber Rosa wrote:
> >
> > The idea about a public facing Gating CI for QEMU was summarized in an
> > RFC[1]. Since then, it was decided that a simpler version should be
> > attempted first.
> >
> > At t
On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 03:47, Cleber Rosa wrote:
>
> The idea about a public facing Gating CI for QEMU was summarized in an
> RFC[1]. Since then, it was decided that a simpler version should be
> attempted first.
>
> At this point, there are two specific runners (an aarch64 and an s390)
> register
The idea about a public facing Gating CI for QEMU was summarized in an
RFC[1]. Since then, it was decided that a simpler version should be
attempted first.
At this point, there are two specific runners (an aarch64 and an s390)
registered with GitLab, at https://gitlab.com/qemu-project, currently
13 matches
Mail list logo
