Comment by skydhash
5 hours ago
> I've always hated fixup/typo/fix tests commits and toyed with having a CI check that enforced ci passing on each commit but this drops that need.
Can't you run your CI locally? I know it's not feasible for some codebase, but at least the linting, formatting, unit tests, some integration tests should be able to be done locally.
>Can't you run your CI locally?
If you mean automated tests and linters, sure.
Conceptually continuous integration is generally integrating 2+ different lineages of code together which is more common with multiple developers although I suppose it's becoming more relevant with agents creating a bunch of worktrees with different things.
In practice, CI has taken the same path as "DevOps Engineer" ie most people just mean "automated test server"
The opposite of CI is more-or-less merge windows or merge-fest like Linux where everyone mails in their changes and someone manually integrates.
> Conceptually continuous integration is generally integrating 2+ different lineages of code together
> In practice, CI [often means] "automated test server"
Could you say more? I use "CI" to refer to the automated processes that run tests and (maybe) deploy code as it is merged to some blessed branch. It's what continually integrates the new code into the existing code. What am I missing?
You can't have mac/windows/linux/whatever all locally simultanously.
Not every project requires this, but for those that do, it's impossible.
Also, it is much harder to enforce "everyone must run each commit through the CI equivalent properly" than it is when it's on your forge.
> You can't have mac/windows/linux/whatever all locally simultanously.
Why can't you? That's what VMs are for. And even then, most cross-platform codebases have an abstraction layer that rarely changes. So even testing on one platform can raise your confidence very high.
> Also, it is much harder to enforce "everyone must run each commit through the CI equivalent properly"
Again why? I wouldn't care about the dev's local branch. But what is send to the main repo can be easily scripted to run the CI on every commit. You just send the result back with each commit that fails. They can replicate the same workflow on their local workspace as a pre-push process.
You can't run MacOS in a VM on non-Mac hardware without violating Apple's EULA.
> But what is send to the main repo can be easily scripted to run the CI on every commit.
Sure, this could work. I didn't say it was impossible, just more difficult. You have to build all of this support on top of the system that already does it for you: have your forge run CI on every commit.
Heh, it's a fun reminder that different people work on different things.
Sure, I could load up my build machine with mac/windows/linux/android, with multiple versions of each. Emulating x86+x86_64+arm32+arm64+aarch64+... is also doable, sort of.
But considering that the real CI runs several thousand hours of tests total across all platforms, I think I won't.
Also, my Electron-based IDE needs those 10s of GB to edit text. How can you possibly edit a 1KB text file with less than 1GB of RAM?
Not to mention clangd that needs to do its ultra-important work Right Now so I can invalidate it all with my next edit. That's probably the biggest RAM hog of them all.