Skip to content

Conversation

@mcgrof
Copy link
Contributor

@mcgrof mcgrof commented Jul 10, 2025

We always clone a full repository. This is counter productive and wasteful. Allow users to specify that they are using kpd to help test patches for a git tree which we should expect a mirror on a target mirror path.

Optionally, we also allow users to clarify that their target git tree is a linux clone, and in such cases we can always fallback to looking for a mirror path with the "linux.git" name.

So for example, all kdevops enterprise deployments can easily profit from this as kdevops has support to mirror all target git trees it supports under /mirror/ through an NFS export for clients. And so small thing guests can be used for kpd instances, which can leverage this NFS export.

This allows kpd to be run on smaller guests with less storage needs. This should allow more than one kpd instance to run on small guests too.

Generated-by: ChatGPT Codex

We always clone a full repository. This is counter productive and
wasteful. Allow users to specify that they are using kpd to help
test patches for a git tree which we should expect a mirror on
a target mirror path.

Optionally, we also allow users to clarify that their target git
tree is a linux clone, and in such cases we can always fallback
to looking for a mirror path with the "linux.git" name.

So for example, all kdevops enterprise deployments can easily
profit from this as kdevops has support to mirror all target git
trees it supports under /mirror/ through an NFS export for clients.
And so small thing guests can be used for kpd instances, which
can leverage this NFS export.

This allows kpd to be run on smaller guests with less storage needs.
This should allow more than one kpd instance to run on small guests
too.

Generated-by: ChatGPT Codex
Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
@theihor theihor self-requested a review July 14, 2025 21:20
Copy link
Contributor

@theihor theihor left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A great improvement overall, thanks!

Please see comments with feedback.

@mcgrof
Copy link
Contributor Author

mcgrof commented Sep 27, 2025

OK! Pushed new fixes.

@mcgrof
Copy link
Contributor Author

mcgrof commented Sep 27, 2025

I've addressed the feedback in #20 to limit the scope back here.

@mcgrof
Copy link
Contributor Author

mcgrof commented Sep 27, 2025

Going to re-open this.

@mcgrof
Copy link
Contributor Author

mcgrof commented Sep 27, 2025

OK let's see if this works

@mcgrof
Copy link
Contributor Author

mcgrof commented Sep 27, 2025

@theihor I can't re-open this pull request despite all my efforts.

@theihor
Copy link
Contributor

theihor commented Oct 1, 2025

@mcgrof thank you for addressing the feedback.

Looks like inability to re-open a closed PR after a force-push is a known github quirk: isaacs/github#361
Please push the latest version of your changes to a branch with a new name, and open a new PR. It's dumb, but what can we do...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants