Hi, How about creating a mirror repository on https://gitlab.com/ only to run CI jobs?
This is an idea that is described in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-5673 . GitLab CI can attach external workers. So we can increase CI capacity by adding our new workers. GitLab also provides Docker registry. It means that we can cache built Docker images for our CI. It will reduce CI time. The feature to create a mirror repository for CI isn't included in the Free tier on https://gitlab.com/ . But https://gitlab.com/ provides the Gold tier features to open source project: https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/github/#open-source-projects So we can use this feature. Here are advantages I think to use GitLab CI: * We can increase CI capacity by adding our new workers. * GitLab Runner (CI job runner) can work on GNU/Linux, macOS and Windows: https://docs.gitlab.com/runner/#requirements It means that we can increase CI capacity of all of them. * We can reduce CI time by caching built Docker images. * It will reduce package build job time especially. * We can run CUDA related tests in CI by adding CUDA enabled workers. * We can manage CI jobs in https://github.com/apache/arrow repository. * GitLab CI uses .gitlab-ci.yml like .travis.yml for Travis CI. If we create a mirror repository for CI on https://gitlab.com/ , https://gitlab.com/ursa-labs/arrow will be a good URL. Thanks, -- kou In <CAJPUwMBpxzCLZEM2=wwb+necdwz0z0kjd5egss3uqoiirk-...@mail.gmail.com> "Re: [DISCUSS] Ongoing Travis CI service degradation" on Sat, 29 Jun 2019 14:54:19 -0500, Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > hi Rok, > > I would guess that GitHub Actions will have the same resource and > hardware limitations that Travis CI and Appveyor currently have, as > well as organization-level resource contention with the rest of the > ASF. > > We need to have dedicated, powerful hardware (more cores, more RAM), > with more capabilities (architectures other than x86, and with GPUs), > that can run jobs longer than 50 minutes, with the ability to scale up > as the project grows in # of contributions per month. In the past > month Arrow had 4300 hours of builds on Travis CI. What will happen > when we need 10,000 or more hours per month to verify all of our > patches? At the current rapid rate of project growth it is only a > matter of time. > > I made a graph of commits to master by month: > > https://imgur.com/a/02TtGXx > > With nearly ~300 commits in the month of June alone, it begs the > question how to support 500 commits per month, or 1000. > > - Wes > > > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 5:19 AM Rok Mihevc <rok.mih...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> GitHub Actions are currently in limited public beta and appear to be >> similar to GitLab CI: https://github.com/features/actions >> More here: https://help.github.com/en/articles/about-github-actions >> >> Rok >> >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 7:06 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Based on the discussion in >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 it does not appear >> > to be ASF Infra's inclination to allow projects to donate money to the >> > Foundation to get more build resources on Travis CI. Our likely only >> > solution is going to be to reduce our dependence on Travis CI. In the >> > short term, I would say that the sooner we can migrate all of our >> > Linux builds to docker-compose form to aid in this transition, the >> > better >> > >> > We are hiring in our organization (Ursa Labs) for a dedicated role to >> > support CI and development lifecycle automation (packaging, >> > benchmarking, releases, etc.) in the Apache Arrow project, so I hope >> > that we can provide even more help to resolve these issues in the >> > future than we already are >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 11:35 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > Also note that the situation with AppVeyor isn't much better. >> > > >> > > Any "free as in beer" CI service is probably too capacity-limited for >> > > our needs now, unless it allows private workers (which apparently Gitlab >> > > CI does). >> > > >> > > Regards >> > > >> > > Antoine. >> > > >> > > >> > > Le 26/06/2019 à 18:32, Wes McKinney a écrit : >> > > > It seems that there is intermittent Apache-wide degradation of Travis >> > > > CI services -- I was looking at https://travis-ci.org/apache today and >> > > > there appeared to be a stretch of 3-4 hours where no queued builds on >> > > > github.com/apache were running at all. I initially thought that the >> > > > issue was contention with other Apache projects but even with >> > > > round-robin allocation and a concurrency limit (e.g. no Apache project >> > > > having more than 5-6 concurrent builds) that wouldn't explain why NO >> > > > builds are running. >> > > > >> > > > This is obviously disturbing given how reliant we are on Travis CI to >> > > > validate patches to be merged. >> > > > >> > > > I've opened a support ticket with Travis CI to see if they can provide >> > > > some insight into what's going on. There is also an INFRA ticket where >> > > > other projects have reported some similar experiences >> > > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 >> > > > >> > > > As a meta-comment, at some point Apache Arrow is going to need to move >> > > > off of public CI services for patch validation so that we can have >> > > > unilateral control over scaling our build / test resources as the >> > > > community grows larger. As the most active merger of patches (I have >> > > > merged over 50% of pull requests over the project's history) this >> > > > affects me greatly as I am often monitoring builds on many open PRs so >> > > > that I can merge them as soon as possible. We are often resorting to >> > > > builds on contributor's forks (assuming they have enabled Travis CI / >> > > > Appveyor) >> > > > >> > > > As some context around Travis CI in particular, in January Travis CI >> > > > was acquired by Idera, a private equity (I think?) developer tools >> > > > conglomerate. It's likely that we're seeing some "maximize profit, >> > > > minimize costs" behavior in play, so the recent experience could >> > > > become the new normal. >> > > > >> > > > - Wes >> > > > >> >
