Re: [edk2-devel] [Patch 1/1] EmulatorPkg/PlatformCI: stick with "ubuntu-18.04" for now

["Rebecca Cran" <rebecca@bsdio.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2181 bytes --]

Given they still support Ubuntu 16.04 (https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments), I suspect 18.04 will be supported until the upstream EOL in 2023.

— 
Rebeca Cran 

> On Jan 8, 2021, at 11:35 AM, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On 01/08/21 19:14, Rebecca Cran wrote:
>>> On 1/8/21 11:01 AM, Sean wrote:
>>> 
>>> Question to the community (especially those using a Linux environment)
>>> is what priority should it be to go resolve these and update CI to run
>>> on Ubuntu 20.04?  General premise is we should stay current without
>>> being bleeding edge but I want to understand other perspectives.
>> 
>> From previous discussions, it sounds like we did want to be on the
>> bleeding edge - which I personally think is a bad idea, since breaking
>> changes can come in at the worst time.
>> 
>> Instead, we should stay on a stable release but watch out for newer
>> versions and move forward to them after applying any fixes.
>> 
> 
> I'm all for sticking with stable artifacts, but:
> 
> - we don't know *how long* the github.com/actions organization intends
> to support the 18.04 LTS image
> 
> - the breakage with 20.04 LTS indeed hit us at a bad time, but at least
> we had something to fall back to. If we switch to the oldest supported
> VM image, as a permanent choice, then, when that image loses support,
> we'll only be able to escape *forward* -- and *that* is an even worse
> experience.
> 
> It's always the same problem -- production users always want *someone
> else* to test out the new release for them.
> 
> Instead, what I would really welcome here is if we exempted edk2 patches
> that tweaked the CI configuration from the usual patch review process.
> Delaying an actual edk2 patch because its review is not complete --
> that's fine, that's how development works. On the other hand, blocking
> the *merging* of an otherwise reviewed patch, just because the CI system
> is broken again, is an *outrage*. Having to submit *further patches to
> review* -- this time for the CI config itself --, in order to mitigate
> the CI breakage, is a completely broken workflow.
> 
> Laszlo
> 


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3719 bytes --]