Re: Indication of build failure from substitute servers?

[Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>]

Marek Paśnikowski <marek@marekpasnikowski.pl> writes:

> The proof of availability is in workflow itself. The project committers
> NEVER commit anything to the master branch. Only the CI system
> does. Instead, the committers push to a "pre-main" branch, and the CI
> system picks the commits up one by one and attempts to build them as
> usual. IMPORTANT POINT: *if* the commit builds correctly, it gets pushed
> by CI to master branch, and the substitute is already available. *If*
> the commit does not build, it gets rejected, and it never goes to
> master.
>
> I currently do not know enough about Git to confidently propose a
> solution to the problem of how to handle the reordering of the queued
> work on a build failure, but I have a feeling it is not that hard to
> solve.

Prior art: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/pipelines/merge_trains.html

An open problem is preserving commit signatures or perhaps changing the
meaning of signatures by signing not the commit but the changes only.

-- 
Ricardo