+0 no clear preference for me. I am fine with both On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 at 11:05 AM Bertty Contreras <[email protected]> wrote:
> the documentation step had problem even in TravisCI, and I will take care > of it to have it done in GA:D > > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:17 AM CalvinKirs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > At present, only the automatic push of documents has not been done, > > because I am not familiar with it. In addition, all functions of TravisCI > > have been migrated to GithubAction > > > > > > Best wishes！ > > Calvin Kirs > > > > > > On 03/18/2022 17:07，Alexander Alten<[email protected]> wrote： > > Hi, > > > > +0 > > > > I’m fine with both, but having both - I don’t know. But I support every > > decision :) > > > > Cheers, > > —Alex > > > > On 18. Mar 2022, at 10:05, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > It seems the GA coverage is pretty close to Travis, so, I think we can > > remove Travis and focus on GA. > > > > My €0.01 ;) > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 11:41 PM Bertty Contreras <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > Today I ran one compilation and the differences between TravisCI and > Github > > Actions in terms of start running the job does not have a comparison. > > > > Additionally to that @CalvinKirs migrate all the pipelines that we had in > > TravisCI to Github Action > > > > Do we remove TravisCI?? because at this moment it is just a redundant > > process. > > > > Best regards, > > Bertty > > >
