Great question. IMO the main benefit in continuing to support Travis is that we could better separate our test/deployment code from the CI specific bits so that most of the plugin_template code could be CI agnostic. That said, this would be more work. I think it comes down to whether we want our plugin_template to be more opinionated or more configurable.
David On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 8:18 AM Dana Walker <dawal...@redhat.com> wrote: > +1 to moving to Github Actions. > > Can anyone think of reasons a plugin would want to stay with Travis > specifically? As fao89 pointed out on the issue, at least each plugin that > does choose to move takes some of the workload with them to free up job > runners for plugins that choose to remain. > > Dana Walker > > She / Her / Hers > > Software Engineer, Pulp Project > > Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> > > dawal...@redhat.com > <https://www.redhat.com> > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:26 AM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Over the past year, we've experienced several growing pains with using >> Travis as our CI/CD environment. Perhaps the biggest has been the >> limitation of having only 3 concurrent job runners[0] across our entire >> Pulp organization. At times, it has slowed development by bottlenecking the >> merging of PRs and delayed numerous releases of Pulp. >> >> Last year, Github introduced Github Actions which offers open source >> projects 20 concurrent jobs[1]. I've filed an issue here to get feedback on >> moving our repos and plugins to Github Actions: >> >> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6065 >> >> Also, @fao89 has opened a couple PoC PRs to demonstrate using Github >> Actions: >> >> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/pull/353 >> https://github.com/pulp/ansible-pulp/pull/217 >> >> You'll notice for example that the ansible-pulp build time went from more >> than 1 hour[2] to 27 minutes[3] as all the jobs ran in parallel on Github >> Actions. >> >> Unless there are objections, we plan to merge the ansible-pulp PR this >> week since it's CI configuration is independent from other pulp and plugin >> repos (ie it doesn't use the plugin_template's Travis files). >> >> We're hoping though to get feedback on whether we should move pulpcore >> and plugin repos to Github Actions. If so, should we provide plugins with >> the option to continue using Travis if they want? >> >> If there's no objections by February 11, 2020, we'll proceed with moving >> pulp_file to Github Actions and look at updating plugin_template. >> >> [0] https://travis-ci.com/plans >> [1] >> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#usage-limits >> [2] https://travis-ci.org/pulp/ansible-pulp/builds/645651353 >> [3] https://github.com/fabricio-aguiar/ansible-pulp/actions/runs/33601847 >> >> David >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev