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

* Otto Kekäläinen <[email protected]> [260718 07:18]:
>Hi,
>
>> > Alert fatigue is a well known phenomenon. The purpose of a CI system
>> > is to be 99% green. In the 1% of cases where it fails, it should cause
>> > development to stop so developers can research why, and fix a
>> > regression before it goes into production or before new feature
>> > development continues.
>>
>> Maybe you should investigate
>> https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline/-/commits/master?ref_type=heads
>> which seems to be have a lot more than 1% failed pipelines.... :)
>
>The git HEAD is and was green when you wrote this. As the this git
>repo has no releases, only the HEAD passing all CI matters.
>
>If you or others have CI enabled on projects where you can't fix the
>repo so CI passes and git HEAD gets green, please scale down testing
>scope until it passes, or disable the CI.

That's all nice, but when the CI config changes after setting it up 
and then breaks, we can't expect everybody to run around busily and 
disable newly failing or even newly appearing jobs.

A good example is this:
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/pdns-recursor/-/jobs/10005512

Completely unactionable to me, not enabled by me, the job wasn't 
there when I configured salsa-ci the last time, yet now CI is red.

"Thanks!"

I'm not gonna spend time on fixing CI that used to work for 
something that I didn't break. At least not in the next 6 months. 
Contributor time is limited - such changes only waste it.

Best,
Chris