[delayed]

Yeah, we use that instead of dedicated runners, too. But it is a relatively new Gitlab concept, isn't it?

[delayed]

I was a bit confused when I first saw this in the context of deployment jobs.

If you go with oldest first and two or more prod jobs want to run, you are gonna have to wait for all the old deployments to finish unless you go to each one and cancel them, leaving only the latest one. This does prevent unorderd deployments from overwriting each other, but it's a pita.

If you go with newest first, old deployments will overwrite new ones unless you toggle the setting to prevent outdated jobs from running, by which case you'll be locked out of doing a rollback unless you regenerate a whole old pipeline.

It would make sense if they had a "newest only", where if you have one deployment running and 10 pending, by the time the current deployment finishes, gitlab would cancel all deployments except for the latest one. This way you don't have to wait for old deployments and you're free to do a rollback at any time. Bonus points if the cancelled jobs display a link to the latest job that was chosen from the queue.

I've just checked our code, and we use `oldest_first`, not `newest_first`.

> "It would make sense if they had a "newest only", where if you have one deployment running and 10 pending, by the time the current deployment finishes, gitlab would cancel all deployments except for the latest one. This way you don't have to wait for old deployments, and you're free to do a rollback at any time."

Hi, GitLab Team member here. This is exactly how GitLab functions when you use "newest first" process mode [1] with Prevent outdated deployment jobs enabled [2]. By default, pipeline job retries for deployment rollback is enabled, you can rollback to any of the failed old deployments, except where its disabled. [3]

[1] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/resource_groups/#process-modes

[2] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/environments/deployment_safety...

[3] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/environments/deployment_safety...

Thanks for getting back to me!

That's amazing, I always had this problem in my head about how to solve people stepping on each other's toes with high volume CD workflows.

This should solve it nicely, thanks again!

Ah this is good. This had come in when I used it but I think the GitLab instance I used was a few releases out of date so wasn't available at the time.

I think merge trains weren't a feature when I worked with GitLab, it was a while ago. This does certainly solve it, but at the cost of quite a different process. If what you're optimising for is time to release, merge trains add an overhead. At some point that overhead is worth it, but it depends on the team/product/etc.

Having just one runner be the deployer is an option too. I think we used hosted runners so not sure if this is possible in that setup? This would also make pipelines harder to optimise. Often there are many parts in pipelines that are safe to do in parallel, and only a few "critical sections" around which you want locking. This would solve simultaneous releases, but not the general case of the problem (which at least Jenkins and GitHub Actions manage ok).

GitLab always felt to me like Travis++, whereas systems developed later felt like they were built on fundamentally better primitives. Jenkins is a weird one because it has all of the features, can do all of these things, really quite well in many cases, but has a pretty bad developer experience and required a lot of maintenance to run a performant and secure install.