Kenn, thank you for the summary. SGTM. Looking forward to GitHub Actions. On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 12:58 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote:
> OK, it seems like there is general consensus. Not too much action on the > document. I will summarize the gaps that don't have an answer in the doc, > and my new opinion of how important they are: > > - [required] Run specific non-default workflow on PR > - [required] View history of a workflow > - [required] Publish nightly snapshots > - [required] Run workflow on dedicated worker pool for performance testing > - [important but not required] Summarize flakiness statistics of one or > all workflows > - [important but not required] History of all/many workflows in a single > view > - [nice to have] History of specific test case (not just the workflow > level) > > Do any of these seem like I got the importance wrong? > > Kenn > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 9:09 AM Austin Bennett <aus...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Also would help address a good amount of what concerns me that was >> [sorta] raised by >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/7jr99nc5xsb3ft1d75kb0ml32bzw89rv >> >> >> Once we think this is something we want to do, but might be >> blocked/concerned because of lack of definitively comparable features, I'd >> be happy to take a look at what exists in the wider ecosystem or could be >> built. >> >> Cheers - >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 11:10 AM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 Github Actions are more intuitive and easy to modify and test for >>> everyone. >>> Also Beam wins because that makes one less system to maintain. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ismaël >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 5:50 PM Danny McCormick via dev >>> <dev@beam.apache.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > Thanks for kicking this conversation off. I'm +1 on migrating, but >>> only once we've found a specific replacement for easy observability (which >>> workflows have been failing lately, and how often) and trigger phrases (for >>> retries and workflows that aren't automatically kicked off but should be >>> run for extra validation, e.g. postcommits). Until we have viable >>> replacements, I don't think we should make the move. Publishing nightly >>> snapshots is eventually also a must to fully migrate, but probably doesn't >>> need to block us from making progress here. >>> > >>> > With those caveats, the reason that I'm +1 on moving is that our >>> Jenkins reliability has been rough. Since I joined the project in January, >>> I can think of 3 different incidents that significantly harmed our ability >>> to do work. >>> > >>> > 1. Jenkins triggers cause multi-day outage - this led to a multi-day >>> code freeze, and we lost our trigger functionality for days afterwards. >>> Investigating/restoring our state ate up a pretty full week for me. >>> > 2. Jenkins plugin cause multi-day outage - this led to multiple days >>> of Jenkins downtime before eventually being resolved by Infra. >>> > 3. Cert issues cause many workers to go down - I don't have a thread >>> for this because I handled most of the investigation the day of, but many >>> of our workers went down for around a day and nobody noticed until queue >>> time reached 6+ hours for each workflow. >>> > >>> > There may be others that I'm overlooking. >>> > >>> > GitHub Actions isn't a magic bullet to fix these problems, but it >>> minimizes the amount of infra that we're maintaining ourselves, increases >>> the isolation between workflows (catastrophic failure is less likely), has >>> uptime guarantees, and is more likely to receive investment going forward >>> (we're likely to get increasing benefits over time for free). We've also >>> done a lot of exploration in this area already, so we're not starting from >>> scratch. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Danny >>> > >>> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:32 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi all, >>> >> >>> >> As you probably noticed, there's a lot of work going on around adding >>> more GitHub Actions workflows. >>> >> >>> >> Can we fully migrate to GitHub Actions? Similar to our GitHub Issues >>> migration (but less user-facing) it would bring us on to "default" >>> infrastructure that more people understand and is maintained by GitHub. >>> >> >>> >> So far we have hit some serious roadblocks. It isn't just a simple >>> migration. We have to weigh doing the work to get there. >>> >> >>> >> I started a document with a table of the things we get from Jenkins >>> that we need to be sure to have for GitHub Actions before we could think >>> about migrating: >>> >> >>> >> https://s.apache.org/beam-jenkins-to-gha >>> >> >>> >> Can you please help me by adding things that we get from Jenkins, and >>> if you know how to get them from GitHub Actions add that too. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks! >>> >> >>> >> Kenn >>> >> -- Regards, Tomo
