+1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it for months for my side projects, and it’s working very well. I believe most of us are quite tired of the waiting time using Travis CI.
The only point I would like to remind is whether we need to communicate with Infra/Legal team for this. XD On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 for Github actions > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI experience - faster is > > good too! > > > > -a > > > > On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy < > > aizha...@apache.org> wrote: > > >+1 on GitHub Actions. > > > > > >On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > >wrote: > > > > > >> 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 <+48%20660%20796%20129> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 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 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129 > > >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>> > > >> > > >>>> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> -- > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> Jarek Potiuk > > >> > > >>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software > > >Engineer > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129 > > >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>> > > >> > > >>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Jarek Potiuk > > >> > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software > > >Engineer > > >> > > > > > >> > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129 > > >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>> > > >> > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > -- > > >> > > > > >> > > Jarek Potiuk > > >> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > >> > > > > >> > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129 > > >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>> > > >> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> Jarek Potiuk > > >> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > >> > > >> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129 > > >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>> > > >> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > >> > > >
