From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= Boskovits Subject: bug#32540: Cuirass: we need a way to manually trigger evaluations Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 12:17:38 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87h8jgb0ki.fsf@lassieur.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000099169f05746809a5" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52101) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fuEb4-0003dP-8f for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 06:18:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fuEax-00039y-3W for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 06:18:09 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:56797) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fuEaw-00039d-To for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 06:18:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fuEaw-0004Vb-Hx for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 06:18:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87h8jgb0ki.fsf@lassieur.org> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur Cc: 32540@debbugs.gnu.org --00000000000099169f05746809a5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cl=C3=A9ment Lassieur ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2= 018. aug. 27., H, 11:54): > The 'core-updates' and 'staging' branches shouldn't trigger evaluations > at each commit, because they produce too many derivations. Instead, the > admins should have a 'trigger evaluation' button that they use once in a > while. That button should be part of an 'admin interface', which should > be protected by NGINX's 'auth_basic' authentication mechanism. > > > I agree that we need a mechanism like this. I am not sure about what the protection mechanism should be. 'auth_basic' has some appeal, as it is quite easy, but I would like to hear some more opinions about that part. --00000000000099169f05746809a5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable