It does not need to be Jenkins (we will hopefully get VMs that we can put whatever on) - but it seems that (If it works out of course which is something we need to finalise) from "process" point of view following the footsteps of Apache Beam and using the same setup might be one of the best choices (and then we would not have to maintain our own CI service - just connect to the one maintained by Apache Infrastructure). From our point of view we would just have to have a pool of worker machines running - Jenkins master will manage everything for us.
As many others I have a "love-hate" relationship with Jenkins - but I always loved the Dashboard/Job UI. My hare is mostly based on the old way of managing the builds where you had to use UI to manage the builds. With Jenkins Pipelines <https://jenkins.io/doc/book/pipeline/getting-started/> it's really close to any modern CI - actually it is even better as you manage your build configuration as a code (Gradle in this case) and keep it in repo - similar to travis.yml. We had discussion recently about it and I think the general conclusion was that as long as you can read logs and have the dashboard with job status - nobody really cares what CI system is used. On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:27 PM Bolke de Bruin <bdbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Awesome! But I hope you are not serious about using Jenkins right? If I > need to start a Holy War it would be against Jenkins. > > B. > > Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad > > > Op 10 jul. 2019 om 22:55 heeft Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > het volgende geschreven: > > > > Hello Everyone, > > > > I have some really good news. I just had a call with Google OSS team > (Gris, > > Aizhamal) and they are willing to donate VMs on Google Cloud Platform to > > run CI for Airflow. In order to simplify the setup (and make sure it is > ok > > according to Apache regulations) we think we should go exactly the same > > route as Apache Beam project (Google donated 16x 16CPU machines for > them). > > The route of Apache Beam is to use the machines as workers for Apache > > Jenkins (https://builds.apache.org/). Apache Jenkins is one of the > > encouraged CI solutions by Apache and if we can have workers connected to > > the existing Jenkins master of Apache, it means that the maintenance > > overhead will be pretty minimal. And we can follow Apache Beam setup so I > > do not expect any legal problems. > > > > I also work very closely with the team that uses Apache Beam Jenkins > > heavily so I have access to all the necessary experts to help with the > > setup (and I am happy to help with that). > > > > I really hope everyone in the community will be really happy to go in > that > > direction - it's. Please let me know if you have any concerns ! > > > > We do not need as many machines as Beam for sure (Beam uses the machines > to > > process a lot of data for tests including some load testing) but we need > to > > estimate the number/types of machines that we are going to need. > > Fokko, Ash, others - do you have some recent numbers for the current > usage > > or should I open an Infrastructure ticket for it? > > > > J > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 4:50 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Thanks Aizhamal! I spoke already to Gris and she confirmed that as well > >> and the 8th of July date is ok for us as we will have to evaluate and > >> prepare as well. Have a nice trip. > >> > >> J. > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 4:25 PM Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy > >> <aizha...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 15:28 Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Yeah. I also have a working version of Cloud build configuration and > we > >>> can > >>>> run the tests on cloud build if we can get some credits from Google. > >>> > >>> > >>> I can look into getting a small amount of credits approved for this, to > >>> see > >>> if it’s useful to offload some tests to Cloud Build, or to provision > some > >>> VMs to run on Apache Infra. > >>> > >>> I am traveling at the moment, but I’ll be back in the office on July 8, > >>> and > >>> I’ll try to get this done. > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Aizhamal > >>> > >>> And > >>>> the changes from the upcoming CI image will make it much easier to run > >>>> tests on any CI provider. Except Kubernetes tests they are pretty much > >>>> CI-agnostic. Kubernetes tests will likely be also fixed soon. > >>>> > >>>> Another idea: I thought that in the future we can also run only subset > >>> of > >>>> postgres/mysql/sqlite tests on all combinations. I think there are > just > >>>> handful of tests that are specific for backend (and we already know > >>> which > >>>> ones they are - they are skipped-if). > >>>> > >>>> J. > >>>> > >>>> Principal Software Engineer > >>>> Phone: +48660796129 > >>>> > >>>> czw., 27 cze 2019, 15:12 użytkownik Philippe Gagnon < > >>> philgagn...@gmail.com > >>>>> > >>>> napisał: > >>>> > >>>>> I think the combinations that you are proposing are sensible for > >>>> pre-merge > >>>>> checks. > >>>>> > >>>>> I am working on a proposal to offload extra combinations to another > CI > >>>>> provider (Azure DevOps specifically seems like a good candidate), > >>> either > >>>>> pre or post merge. Ideally I'd like to run more combinations > pre-merge > >>>> but > >>>>> there is a trade-off to be conscious of here between development > >>> velocity > >>>>> and quality assurance, which I think this issue highlights quite > well. > >>>>> > >>>>> Please let me know your thoughts > >>>>> > >>>>> Philippe > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 9:05 AM Jarek Potiuk < > >>> jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Agree that we should be thoughtful about others as well: In the > >>> latest > >>>>> push > >>>>>> (few minutes ago) of the upcoming official CI image i implemented > >>> the > >>>>>> change we discussed in the Github where we limit the number of > >>>>> combinations > >>>>>> we test: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You can see it yourself: > >>>>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/airflow/builds/551305240 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Those are the combinations I propose: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Python: 3.6 > >>>>>> BACKEND=mysql ENV=docker > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Python: 3.6 > >>>>>> BACKEND=postgres ENV=docker > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Python: 3.5 > >>>>>> BACKEND=sqlite ENV=docker > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Python: 3.6 > >>>>>> BACKEND=postgres ENV=kubernetes KUBERNETES_VERSION=v1.13.0 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> J, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:00 AM Driesprong, Fokko > >>>> <fo...@driesprong.frl > >>>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> We got this message last year: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hello, Airflow PPMC. > >>>>>>>> While going through the usage statistics for our Travis CI > >>>> service, I > >>>>>>>> have noticed that the Airflow project is using an abnormally > >>> large > >>>>>>>> amount of resources, 2600 hours per month or the equivalent of > >>>> having > >>>>>>>> almost 4 machines building airflow non-stop 24/7. As this is not > >>>>> free, > >>>>>>>> but rather costing us money, I'm contacting you with the > >>> intention > >>>> of > >>>>>>>> figuring out ways to reduce the use of Travis for the project. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> We would greatly prefer that the project itself comes up with a > >>>>>> solution > >>>>>>>> to lower the usage of Travis, as we'd hate to simply turn it off > >>>> for > >>>>>>>> you, but the usage is at a rather severe level, totaling more > >>> than > >>>>> 21% > >>>>>>>> of the total build time of all projects using Travis, so > >>> something > >>>>>>>> actionable should be decided upon and (preferably) completed by > >>> the > >>>>> end > >>>>>>>> of May that will reduce the consumption of Travis resources. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Alternately, if you are unable to lower the pressure on Travis, > >>> the > >>>>>>>> podling and/or IPMC may ask the board of directors for a > >>> separate > >>>>>> budget > >>>>>>>> for additional build nodes to cope with the added load - I'll > >>> leave > >>>>>> this > >>>>>>>> for the podling and IPMC to decide on. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Please let us know when you have decided on a plan to remedy > >>> this > >>>>>>> situation. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> With regards, > >>>>>>>> Daniel on behalf of ASF Infrastructure. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think more and more projects are still migrating to the ASF > >>> Travis, > >>>>> so > >>>>>> I > >>>>>>> think natural that there is more load. However, this still leaves > >>> the > >>>>>>> question if we have to run the full matrix. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cheers, Fokko > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Op do 27 jun. 2019 om 10:56 schreef Jarek Potiuk < > >>>>>> jarek.pot...@polidea.com > >>>>>>>> : > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think we should really involve infra to increase the slot > >>> number > >>>> or > >>>>>>> maybe > >>>>>>>> even somehow allocate slots per project. > >>>>>>>> The problem is that we cannot control what other apache projects > >>>> are > >>>>>>> doing, > >>>>>>>> so even if we decrease our runtime, it's the other projects that > >>>>> might > >>>>>>> hold > >>>>>>>> us in the queue :( > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> J. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:19 AM Driesprong, Fokko > >>>>>> <fo...@driesprong.frl > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I've noticed this at other Apache projects as well, sometimes > >>> it > >>>>>> takes > >>>>>>> up > >>>>>>>>> to 7-8 hours. The only thing we can do, is reduce the runtime > >>> of > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> jobs > >>>>>>>>> so we take less slots :-) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers, Fokko > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Op wo 26 jun. 2019 om 21:59 schreef Jarek Potiuk < > >>>>>>>> jarek.pot...@polidea.com > >>>>>>>>>> : > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Yep. That's what I suggested as the reason in the ticket - I > >>>>> guess > >>>>>>>> INFRA > >>>>>>>>>> are the only people who can do anything about it (increase > >>>>>>> concurrency > >>>>>>>> ? > >>>>>>>>>> pay more for Travis :)? ). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:51 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor < > >>>>> a...@apache.org> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I asked Travis on twitter and they said it was due to the > >>>>> Apache > >>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>>> projects build queues > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/travisci/status/1143893051460526080 > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -ash > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 26 June 2019 20:48:33 BST, Jarek Potiuk < > >>>>>>> jarek.pot...@polidea.com > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> For the last few days the Travis builds for > >>> apache/airflow > >>>>>> project > >>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>> waiting in a queue for hours. This is not a normal > >>>> situation. > >>>>>> I've > >>>>>>>>>> opened > >>>>>>>>>>>> INFRA ticket for that: > >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18657 > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> J. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk > >>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software > >>>> Engineer > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > >>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk > >>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software > >>> Engineer > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > >>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jarek Potiuk > >>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > >>>>>> > >>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > >>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Jarek Potiuk > >> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > >> > >> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > >> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
