Seems reasonable. Would someone like to help set this up?
Which aspect - the PR validation (travis) and/or the development build
(Jenkins).
The project development on ASF Jenkins (and is operated by CloudBees) at
the moment) is our main CI with builds for Java11, building for Java11
using 14, 15, 16 JDK and a Windows build.
https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Jena/
The Travis file went in to help other people and with ASF infra changes
we started getting PR checking for no effort on our part.
If you read the builds@ list, you'll see that GH actions are not without
their issues :-)
On 08/01/2021 19:57, Aaron Coburn wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 at 14:33, Martynas Jusevičius <marty...@atomgraph.com>
wrote:
Suggestion: migrate builds to GitHub actions. I just did that for our
test suites.
https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2020/travis-cis-new-pricing-plan-threw-wrench-my-open-source-works
ASF gets access to Travis (travis-ci.com) and GH actions (and, I think,
special foundation limits).
The Travis is currently overloaded making it a long time for jobs to run.
It has been quite eventful for main projects on both Trivis and GH
action recently.
But Jena's build is really very simple.
+1
(I used travis-ci for a long time, but now I use GH actions almost
exclusively)
Most of my active personal projects are using GH actions.
Andy
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 6:38 PM Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote:
Status: JENA-2022
One slight problem - on travis-ci.org, the Java11 system is 11.0.2 which
hits a javadoc problem
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8212233
(it says Java12 but it applies to 11.0.1, and 11.0.2, not 11.0.0, the GA
release, or 11.0.3 or later, then 12.0.0, 12.0.1)
I think this is triggered by cross links in Java source code from one
module to another when the modules have Automatic-Module-Name. The fixes
mentioned don't work for Jena.
See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MJAVADOC-555
There are no problems building with the default Java11 on my machine
(11.0.9)
For now I have switched off javadoc production in the .travis.yml file.
It should be OK on ASF Jenkins because there, we control the JDK (and
only 11.0.9 in various forms is available anyway).
What the travis file does for us is that PRs automatically get a check
applied of running the build with the PR at travis (it can take a while
to get scheduled and run). We didn't ask INFRA for this - recent
infrastructure changes mean it just happens.
Andy
On 01/01/2021 12:13, Andy Seaborne wrote:
Should we switch to Java11?
There are the usually issues of moving to a newer Java. There seems
likely to be an emerging bimodal distribution of systems remaining with
Java8 and systems moving to Java11 and Java 17 (likely an LTS -
September 2021).
The question is how many systems would upgrade their Jena version and
are restricted to Java8 (and why!).
Java is evolving to better fit in the new tech landscape (e.g. better
container usage), more compact strings (significant for Jena), and
JDK-provided HTTP/2.
Some dependences or potential dependencies are Java11:
Titanium - for JSON-LD 1.1 (JENA-1948 - titanium-json-ld )
Eclipse Jetty 10 and 11 now depend on Java11.
(the difference between Jetty 10 and Jetty 11 is that Jetty 10 uses the
package root name "javax..." whereas Jetty11 uses package route
"jakarta...")
Proposal:
1/ Ask on users@ -- what we need is "new information" such as "I am
blocked from updating Java because ...", not "I haven't got round to
it".
2/ Switch to Java11 for the next release but not make so many changes
that we can't easily go back to Java8.
Andy
