Hi,
I agree.
I'll submit two requirements though:
> - the configuration for CI builds must be kept in the Arrow repository
>(as they are currently in .github, etc.)
> - CI builds must be runnable from PRs
>
I'll submit three more:
- The result of the build (pass / did not pass) must be
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 1:11 AM Jed Brown wrote:
>
> Wes McKinney writes:
>
> > I think we should take a more serious look at Buildkite for some of our CI.
> >
> > * First of all, it's very easy to connect self-hosted workers and
> > supports ephemeral cloud workers in a way that would be
Wes McKinney writes:
> I think we should take a more serious look at Buildkite for some of our CI.
>
> * First of all, it's very easy to connect self-hosted workers and
> supports ephemeral cloud workers in a way that would be difficult or
> impossible with GHA. No need to have Infra fiddle with
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:53 PM Andy Grove wrote:
>
> I started looking at BulidKite and it would solve one large problem for the
> DataFusion/Ballista project. We really need to be running integration tests
> against large data sets (such as TPC-H @ SF=100GB) and self-hosted
> BuildKite makes
I started looking at BulidKite and it would solve one large problem for the
DataFusion/Ballista project. We really need to be running integration tests
against large data sets (such as TPC-H @ SF=100GB) and self-hosted
BuildKite makes this simple to accomplish. I even have some modest hardware
I think we should take a more serious look at Buildkite for some of our CI.
* First of all, it's very easy to connect self-hosted workers and
supports ephemeral cloud workers in a way that would be difficult or
impossible with GHA. No need to have Infra fiddle with the admin
dashboard. So we
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 2:13 AM Weston Pace wrote:
>
> It may be worth reaching out to the Airflow project. Based on
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BUILDS/GitHub+Actions+status
> it seems they have been investing time into figuring how to make
> self-hosted runners work (it seems
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 10:48 AM Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>
> Le 15/04/2021 à 03:13, Kazuaki Ishizaki a écrit :
> > As we know this is a common issue among Apache projects. While the
> > projects do not have the final solution, Apache Spark project has a
> > mechanism [1][2] to run a test in own
Le 15/04/2021 à 03:13, Kazuaki Ishizaki a écrit :
As we know this is a common issue among Apache projects. While the
projects do not have the final solution, Apache Spark project has a
mechanism [1][2] to run a test in own local (forked) repository. Can we
alleviate the problem a little bit?
] https://github.com/apache/spark-website/pull/286
Regards,
Kazuaki Ishizaki
Weston Pace wrote on 2021/04/15 09:13:05:
> From: Weston Pace
> To: dev@arrow.apache.org
> Date: 2021/04/15 09:13
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: CI feedback time
>
> It may be worth reaching out to t
It may be worth reaching out to the Airflow project. Based on
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BUILDS/GitHub+Actions+status
it seems they have been investing time into figuring how to make
self-hosted runners work (it seems Github's patching model makes this
somewhat difficult).
On
Hi Krisztian,
Thanks for bringing this up. This is definitely becoming a
high-priority topic for Arrow development.
I don't believe there is much opportunity for reducing the number of
builds or their runtime. We simply have a lot of development going on,
and the number of different CI
Hi,
The Apache Github Actions agent pool seems to be oversubscribed as
more Apache projects migrate their CI setup to GHA. We experienced
pretty solid feedback times (~20-30m) when we originally moved to GHA
but now we are roughly 5hrs behind [1].
Based on other projects' complaints and
13 matches
Mail list logo
