Re: Don't run Salsa CI in vain - a disabled CI is better than a persistently failing one

On Sat, 04 Jul 2026 at 21:25:18 +0200, Timo Röhling wrote:
>* Otto Kekäläinen <[email protected]> [2026-06-29 13:27]:
>>If developers are not quick to fix or disable failing jobs
>
>I find it really frustrating to see my CI turn red only to realize 
>that it's just a random pipeline failure such as [1].

This doesn't just apply to CI-runner infra failures like that one: it's 
relatively frequent for Salsa-CI jobs to fail for reasons that have very 
little to do with the package under test, like a regression in a 
dependency or in the test tool (piuparts, Lintian, or similar), or a 
limitation in the pipeline (for example jobs that can't succeed when 
targeting experimental or backports, as a result of apt's default 
pinning). The better the Salsa-CI pipeline coverage becomes, the more 
often we'll have at least one job failing for a reason that isn't a bug 
in the package under test.

Pushing commits to Salsa to disable the affected jobs, and then 
re-enable them when the regression has been addressed, could easily 
result in generating more CI runner load than leaving them failing (as 
well as taking up more contributor time).

     smcv