Yeah. Gitlab CI is definitely what I would prefer as well from the "modernity" point of view (and one of my very close friends is Gitlab CI maintainer and actually The person who introduced CI to GitLab offering). I also actually already catalysed discussion between GitLab and Apache infrastructure to introduce GitLab CI on the "Apache" level (they are talking about it now I believe).
But from Google <> Apache/Procedural point of view it might simply be easier to follow footsteps of Apache Beam. It might simply be few clicks away for the Apache Infrastructure to add more machines and connect them to the Apache Jenkins for our project. If we have a path cleared by others, following it might be simply much faster. But we can try both of course. And even switch later. The Docker CI approach I am about to merge is designed to be super-easy to switch betwen CI systems. Virtually ALL the build logic is in scripts in shared Docker images. There is basically one file per CI system to add and we can support Travis/Jenkins/CloudBuild/CircleCI - whatever we imaging. We can even support all of them at the same time :) J. On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:32 PM Bolke de Bruin <bdbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you need an alternative why not use a couple of gitlab-ci runners? Much > easier to maintain, light weight, and much closer to what we use now. > > B. > > Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad > > > Op 10 jul. 2019 om 23:27 heeft Bolke de Bruin <bdbr...@gmail.com> het > volgende geschreven: > > > > 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/>
