Legal: no I don't think so. Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there to run things on our own "hardware" - https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets <https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets> needs someone with Admin rights to create, and I don't see the Settings tab at all.
-ash > On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <[email protected]> wrote: > > +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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 for Github actions >> >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> 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 < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> +1 on GitHub Actions. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> >>>> 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 < >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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 >>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> 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/> >>>>> >>> >>
