чт, 23 янв. 2020 г. в 03:10, Tim Düsterhus <t...@bastelstu.be>:
> Ilya, > > Am 22.01.20 um 23:04 schrieb Илья Шипицин: > >> Yes, that's my understanding of GitHub actions as well. However I > >> dislike having three types of CI (Travis, Cirrus and GitHub Actions). > >> Can Travis be replaced with GitHub Actions for our use case? I guess > >> Cirrus can't, because FreeBSD? > > > > both travis and github actions do offer 4 parallel builds, while cirrus > and > > app veyor offer 1 parallel build. > > Parallel Builds just improve test speed. I don't consider that an > important selling point for us. The development process is fairly > asynchronous anyway and the important thing is that there are results > for more obscure configurations, not that there results within 1 minute. > However ... > > > travis-ci offers ARM64, ppc64le and s390x (not available on github > actions). > > ... that's a good argument to keep Travis-CI. Too bad, I like the GitHub > Actions integration better. > > me too :) travis is not comfortable for choosing custom images (for example, if you wish to build on Fedora or Arch). > >>> + - name: fake step > >> > >> Give a proper name to that step. "Show pwd" is fine. > >> > > > > > > there should be no such step. > > however, without that step cygwin fails for no visible reason. > > Then it's even more important to give a good name (or comment). > Otherwise you might risk that someone removes it accidentally! > > >> 2. Split the ./haproxy -vv into a separate step, if that's possible. > >> > > sure, it's possible > > > > Perfect. I wasn't sure whether the environment was somehow cleaned up in > between the steps. > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus >
