Re: [PATCH v2 07/11] acpi/tests/bits: add python test that exercizes QEMU bios tables using biosbits

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 09:33:27AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 01:43:15PM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 1:58 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 09:30:42PM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 12:08 AM Ani Sinha <ani@anisinha.ca> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2022, Ani Sinha wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 16 Jul 2022, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:06:00PM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:20 Michael S. Tsirkin 
> > > > > > > > <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >     On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 09:47:27AM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote:
> > > > > > > >     > > Instead of all this mess, can't we just spawn e.g. "git 
> > > > > > > > clone --depth
> > > > > > > >     1"?
> > > > > > > >     > > And if the directory exists I would fetch and checkout.
> > > > > > > >     >
> > > > > > > >     > There are two reasons I can think of why I do not like 
> > > > > > > > this idea:
> > > > > > > >     >
> > > > > > > >     > (a) a git clone of a whole directory would download all 
> > > > > > > > versions of the
> > > > > > > >     > binary whereas we want only a specific version.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >     You mention shallow clone yourself, and I used --depth 1 
> > > > > > > > above.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >     > Downloading a single file
> > > > > > > >     > by shallow cloning or creating a git archive is overkill 
> > > > > > > > IMHO when a wget
> > > > > > > >     > style retrieval works just fine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >     However, it does not provide for versioning, tagging etc so 
> > > > > > > > you have
> > > > > > > >     to implement your own schema.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hmm I’m not sure if we need all that. Bits has its own 
> > > > > > > > versioning mechanism and
> > > > > > > > I think all we need to do is maintain the same versioning logic 
> > > > > > > > and maintain
> > > > > > > > binaries of different  versions. Do we really need the power of 
> > > > > > > > git/version
> > > > > > > > control here? Dunno.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well we need some schema. Given we are not using official bits 
> > > > > > > releases
> > > > > > > I don't think we can reuse theirs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK fine. Lets figuire out how to push bits somewhere in 
> > > > > > git.qemu.org and
> > > > > > the binaries in some other repo first. Everything else hinges on 
> > > > > > that. We
> > > > > > can fix the rest of the bits later incrementally.
> > > > >
> > > > > DanPB, any thoughts on putting bits on git.qemu.org or where and how 
> > > > > to
> > > > > keep the binaries?
> > > >
> > > > Can we please conclude on this?
> > > > Peter, can you please fork the repo? I have tried many times to reach
> > > > you on IRC but failed.
> > >
> > > Probably because of travel around KVM forum.
> > >
> > > I think given our CI is under pressure again due to gitlab free tier
> > > limits, tying binaries to CI isn't a great idea at this stage.
> > > Can Ani just upload binaies to qemu.org for now?
> > 
> > I agree with Michael here. Having a full ci/cd job for this is
> > overkill IMHO. We should create a repo just for the binaries, have a
> > README there to explain how we generate them and check in new versions
> > as and when needed (it won't be frequent).
> > How about biosbits-bin repo?
> 
> If QEMU is hosting binaries, where any part contains GPL code, then we
> need to be providing the full and corresponding source and the build
> scripts needed to re-create the binary. Once we have such scripts it
> should be trivial to trigger that from a CI job. If it isn't then
> we're doing something wrong.  The CI quota is not an issue, because
> this is not a job that we need to run continuously. It can be triggered
> manually as & when we decide we need to refresh the binary, so would
> be a small one-off CI quota hit.
> 
> Also note that gitlab is intending to start enforcing storage quota
> on projects in the not too distant future. This makes it unappealing
> to store binaries in git repos, unless we genuinely need the ability
> to access historical versions of the binary. I don't believe we need
> that for biosbits.
> 
> The binary can be published as a CI artifact and accessed directly
> from the latest artifact download link. This ensures we only consume
> quota for the most recently published binary artifact. So I don't see
> a compelling reason to upload binaries into git.
> 
> With regards,
> Daniel

I don't really care where we upload them but only having the
latest version is just going to break anything expecting
the old binary.



> -- 
> |: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
> |: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
> |: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|