I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so far and recently it seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in Enterrprise Edition, which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit disappointed with the pace and attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better choice - especially that they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem to get attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
And they added self-hosted runners as well, which makes it possible for us to optimise the experience. J. J. On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than Travis. One of the > main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability to work on > self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks Github Actions > matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners! > > Github Actions are still growing but using them have few big advantages: > - they are Github natives > - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your fork automatically > - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc) > > I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo: > https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542 > My impression is quite good. I like information about steps successes at > the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step failed). The build > log view is a little bit clumsy but it works. > > Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions? Any thoughts > about using it? > > Best, > Tomek > > On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> wrote: > > FYI: Interesting article about the history behind GitLabCI (featuring > > Kamil, my friend). > > > https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk > > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Some update on my GitLab experiences so far: > > > > > > TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly easily replicate > the > > > CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it generally works, I > can > > > plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main Airflow project > for a > > > few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no holidays) and once we > see > > > it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we can switch to it. > > > > > > What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to set it up ? > > > > > > Some details > > > > > > - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI + kubernetes - > > > without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this should be > rather easy > > > with kind (looking at it next): > > > - Working example here - you can take a look and compare the UI/how > it > > > is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc: > > > https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817 > > > - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still around 35 > > > minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I can play > with > > > memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some reasonable > values now), > > > I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc > > > - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial 24) - that > should > > > let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from each other. > > > - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have built in retry > > > mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures like that > > > - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We should be way > below > > > 500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope calculations. > Likely > > > well below > > > - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko as I > > > originally planned. GCR would require custom authentication (and > > > easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well handle > multi-staging > > > builds (cache does not work > > > https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682). I > updated > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI > to > > > reflect that. > > > - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we can have > > > reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's stability (it has > problems > > > sometimes) > > > - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in any > Kubernetes > > > cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting for docker > engine > > > might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be generally > replicable). > > > - You can take a look at the current source code in > > > https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci > > > - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom builder > Docker, > > > simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's mostly some > > > cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables + gitlab.ci yaml > with > > > job definitions. > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk < > jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds from for PRs > :). > > >> > > >> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it: > > >> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139 > > >> J. > > >> > > >> Principal Software Engineer > > >> Phone: +48660796129 > > >> > > >> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk < > jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > >> napisał: > > >> > > >>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI issue about PRs > and > > >>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of Product > Management @ > > >>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough. > > >>> > > >>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in order to alleviate > any > > >>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the whole system on > GitLab > > >>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for quite some time > (even > > >>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we will be able > to tune > > >>> it according to real use cases and compare the experience of both > systems. > > >>> > > >>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will make sure that > > >>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes experience (from my > company) > > >>> who can take over and make sure there will be no problems. However I > am > > >>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I am away. I > would also > > >>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join the project and > > >>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see how easy it is > and how > > >>> maintenance free it is going to be. > > >>> > > >>> J. > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła < > kamil.breg...@polidea.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other problems - building > > >>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch. Currently, > > >>>> building is done using the RTD service. Unfortunately, our project > is > > >>>> too large and often the documentation is not built properly. > > >>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/ > > >>>> We should think about another way to build documentation. In the > ideal > > >>>> world, building documentation should use the same environment as > > >>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to Travis can further > > >>>> reduce our development opportunities. > > >>>> Discussion on Slack about it: > > >>>> > https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900 > > >>>> > > >>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project will soon have > a > > >>>> website and our documentation will also be available in many > > >>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the design studio > > >>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-) > > >>>> > > >>>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E > > >>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you to build a > > >>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks should be combined. > I > > >>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that will be a real > > >>>> support for the community on current events, so it will be updated > > >>>> frequently. > > >>>> > > >>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now have problems > > >>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems in the future > can > > >>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable infrastructure > for > > >>>> the project for a long time. > > >>>> > > >>>> I would like to share another situation which was not pleasant for > me. > > >>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of Travis, I had to > wait > > >>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my changes in a > week, > > >>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I did it over the > > >>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked on Travis by my > > >>>> jobs. > > >>>> > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk < > jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > > >>>> > Hello Everyone, > > >>>> > > > >>>> > I prepared a short docs where I described general architecture of > the > > >>>> > solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly - having GitLab CI > > >>>> support > > >>>> > and Google provided funding for GCP resources. > > >>>> > > > >>>> > I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon but before I > > >>>> start > > >>>> > doing it, I would like to get some comments and opinions on the > > >>>> proposed > > >>>> > approach. I discussed the basic approach with my friend Kamil who > > >>>> works at > > >>>> > GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we think will be > > >>>> > achievable in fairly short time. > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI > > >>>> > > > >>>> > I am happy to discuss details and make changes to the proposal - > we > > >>>> can > > >>>> > discuss it here or as comments in the document. > > >>>> > > > >>>> > Let's see what people think about it and if we get to some > consensus > > >>>> we > > >>>> > might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy consensus as this > is > > >>>> > something we should have rather quickly) > > >>>> > > > >>>> > Looking forward to your comments! > > >>>> > > > >>>> > 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/>
