[petsc-dev] Thoughts on pushing current CI infrastructure to the next level

Karl Rupp rupp at iue.tuwien.ac.at
Thu Apr 25 12:28:35 CDT 2019

On 4/25/19 6:53 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
> Karl Rupp via petsc-dev <petsc-dev at mcs.anl.gov> writes:
>> With some effort we can certainly address 1.) and to some extent 3.),
>> probably 4.) as well, but I don't know how to solve 2.) and 5.) with
>> Jenkins. Given that a significant effort is required for 1.), 3.) and
>> 4.) anyway, I'm starting to get more and more comfortable with the idea
>> of rolling our own CI infrastructure (which has been suggested in some
>> of Barry's snarky remarks already ;-) ). Small Python scripts for
>> executing the tests and pushing results to Bitbucket as well as a
>> central result storage can replicate our existing setup with a few lines
>> of codes, while being much more flexible.
> I think further commitment to Bitbucket would be a liability.

Suggestions? Github, Gitlab, something else?

> On existing open source CI tools, I think looking at how the project
> itself uses CI is a good indicator.  Some examples of recent PRs with
> test failures, see what needs to be done to narrow down what failed.
> https://github.com/buildbot/buildbot/pull/4726
> https://github.com/drone/drone/pull/2363
> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests/27652 (click Expand on the test failure)
> https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/3991

All of these offer more than what we have now. And yet, many offer 
features we will never need and force upon us some constraints on our 
workflow. Maybe other CI tools are better suited for PETSc than Jenkins 
- I don't know, but maybe others know :-)

Our requirements for a package-manager-like PETSc with all its possible 
external packages and weird software stacks on supercomputers are 
different to 'standard' software, unfortunately.

Thanks for your input and best regards,

More information about the petsc-dev mailing list