Frühere Suchanfragen
Suchoptionen
Verwaltet von:
Anoxinon e.V. 
A piece of criticism to all code forges I know: why not run #CI on all commits?
A bad commit is a liability. It will break bisect and make debugging miserable.
#ForgejoActions takes it to the extreme and cancels an already running action when I push another change.
I get it - it's too slow and expensive to test them all when pipelines take minutes to run. But you could just pause the old ones until the newest one is finished!
Oh, now I realized: most forges host underpriced runners, so they have a reason to have them run as little as possible.
Well, I set up my own runner on #forgejo for a single repo, so I have power to spare :P
@dcz It's also not a wise move w.r.t. to energy consumption, environmental impact, and the best way to accelerate #climatecrisis. Also read https://wimvanderbauwhede.codeberg.page/articles/frugal-computing/
So following Pareto principle, you want to find a sweet spot between energy consumption and code checks.
Even if I had the money, I would still reduce pipelines to a bare minimum to avoid wasting energy.
~f
If your pipeline takes 2 minutes and saves 2 hours in debugging and another 20 in working around the problem at the end user side - which is the case at least for me - then the sweet spot is quite clear.
> the best way to accelerate #climatecrisis
I call this a ridiculous statement. If running a computer for 5 extra minutes is comparatively so bad, we should reconsider software altogether.
There are many better ways to heat up Earth, related to transportation and manufacturng.
@Codeberg For comparison, boiling a cup of tea needs about 82.6 kJ of energy.
My CI computer has a 60W power supply (so it can't draw more power than that - we're overestimating). The CI would need to run for 82.6kJ/60W ≅ 1400s ≅ 23 min to match it.
Make it half to offset the energy costs of network communication: 11min.
That gives two 5min pipelines for the price of one hot drink.
Would you drink a cup on every other commit if it saved you time and stress in the future?
I probably would.
@Codeberg Okay, another comparison:
the 5 minutes pipeline costs 82.6kJ * (300s/1400)s = 82.6kJ * 0.21 = 18kJ (*2 for network=36kJ)
A liter of gas contains 33.6MJ per liter, with car efficiency at 20% it's 6.7MJ, at 3l/100km it's 33.3km, so 200kJ/km.
Every 5m pipeline run costs about as much energy as 200/36=222m by a small car.
How far from the office do you live? How many commits do you push upstream per ride?
We have much better ways to curb energy use than not testing software.
@dcz To answer your question directly: I don't have a car. No driver license. I use a bike, or public transport in worst case.
But I don't have an office either, so I don't move regularly.
But to reiterate: Your original post started with "criticism to all code forges". You probably realize that running CI jobs on all commits does not add energy usage which is comparable with individual actions. Having all code forges run CI on every commit requires several additional datacenters.
@dcz It adds additional energy use in the Gigawatt or even Terrawatt scale. Comparing this to individual behaviour is ridiculous.
If you must, you can compare it to actions on a nation scale, such as promoting public transport or decarbonizing industries.
Further, the benefit is questionable, becase not every pipeline requires the debugging effort you mention. Most projects have a good workflow with current CI. There is potential to optimize, but not by unconditionally running more often.
@fnetX Well I did my numbers, so whatever additional energy 5 minutes CI add, on the global scale, they are a drop in the bucket compared to things that really use energy, like drinking tea.
My "ridiculous" assertion is only to saying it's the "best wat to accelerate #climatecrisis".
Running CI in general is not a net benefit depending on the project. Having the option of running CI on every commit would let more people get closer to the optimum.
we should reconsider software altogetherHi, glad to see yet another person finally reaching that conclusion. :)
It is well-known that the best code is the one that didn’t need to be written.
I welcome you to reconsider what a privilege it is to be able to sit down and write code and please stop writing like a spoiled royal child that just found out their privileged life actually costs a lot to maintain.
@samuel I would like to give a thoughtful reply, but I don't really understand what it is you're asking me to do.
I do apologise for the unnecessary aggressivity in my reply, though.
@samuel I think *I* would be sabotaging myself. Don't know about others.
The comparisons were meant to show that we have lower hanging fruit than software - sorry if I was too aggressive about that myself.
I do sincerely believe though that software is a mistake in a whole lot of areas.