Re: CI based on GitHub Actions

[Nasser Kaze]

+1

On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 01:41 VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <
victor.rom...@fintecheando.mx> wrote:

> +1
>
> El jue, 4 nov 2021 a las 17:17, Nazeer Hussain Shaik (<
> nazeerhussain.sh...@gmail.com>) escribió:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nazeer
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 2:42 AM Bharath Gowda  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 :)
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021, 2:07 AM Awasum Yannick  wrote:
>>>
 +1

 On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 5:36 PM Ed Cable  wrote:

> +1 from my side and I think @Michael Vorburger  has
> been a fan as well as we've implemented it as CI for Mifos/OpenMF repos.
>
> Ed
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 9:08 AM Aleksandar Vidakovic <
> chee...@monkeysintown.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 for Github Actions... use it for quite a while and it's really
>> reliable.
>>
>> On Thu, 4 Nov 2021, 16:20 Benura Abeywardena, 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Petri,
>>>
>>> Good idea !
>>>
>>> Thanks & Regards,
>>> Benura
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:25 PM Petri Tuomola <
>>> petri.tuom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hi all

 As I’m sure you’ve noticed, Travis builds have recently been
 getting more and more unreliable: either there is a queue of several 
 hours
 before the build is executed, or in many cases no build is triggered at
 all. This seems to be due to the limits on Apache’s Travis account. I 
 asked
 about this in the Apache Infra JIRA, and the answer was as follows:

 "Our Travis CI capacity is very limited and we will not be
 increasing that limit in the foreseeable future. If you are not happy 
 with
 it, we suggest you switch to GitHub Actions or our Jenkins/BuildBot CI
 instead.”

 Given this, I think it would make sense for us to explore
 alternatives.To try this out, I’ve created a CI build pipeline using 
 Github
 Actions and raised a PR for it (
 https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1955). This is a
 “parallel” pipeline - in that I haven’t removed the Travis one. So once
 this PR is merged, we should get both a Github build as well as a 
 Travis
 build for each PR.

 My suggestion would be to merge this and see how the two compare
 for the next week or so. If Github is more reliable / faster, then we 
 could
 switch off the Travis one altogether.

 The only caveat is: I have not been able to test this very
 comprehensively, as the actions do not run unless the PR is merged. 
 They
 seem to work OK in my own repository, but I can’t guarantee they will
 immediately work in the Apache repo. So there may be some false 
 failures
 initially until we get this build working without issues. However, 
 despite
 the possible “noise” from these failures, I think this would be a
 worthwhile exercise.

 Any concerns? If not, I can merge the actions in tomorrow and then
 address any issues to get them working asap.

 Regards
 Petri


>
> --
> *Ed Cable*
> President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
> edca...@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649
>
> *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *http://mifos.org
>     
>
>

Re: CI based on GitHub Actions

[VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ]

+1

El jue, 4 nov 2021 a las 17:17, Nazeer Hussain Shaik (<
nazeerhussain.sh...@gmail.com>) escribió:

> +1
>
> Thanks,
> Nazeer
>
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 2:42 AM Bharath Gowda  wrote:
>
>> +1 :)
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021, 2:07 AM Awasum Yannick  wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 5:36 PM Ed Cable  wrote:
>>>
 +1 from my side and I think @Michael Vorburger  has
 been a fan as well as we've implemented it as CI for Mifos/OpenMF repos.

 Ed

 On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 9:08 AM Aleksandar Vidakovic <
 chee...@monkeysintown.com> wrote:

> +1 for Github Actions... use it for quite a while and it's really
> reliable.
>
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2021, 16:20 Benura Abeywardena, 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Petri,
>>
>> Good idea !
>>
>> Thanks & Regards,
>> Benura
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:25 PM Petri Tuomola 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> As I’m sure you’ve noticed, Travis builds have recently been getting
>>> more and more unreliable: either there is a queue of several hours 
>>> before
>>> the build is executed, or in many cases no build is triggered at all. 
>>> This
>>> seems to be due to the limits on Apache’s Travis account. I asked about
>>> this in the Apache Infra JIRA, and the answer was as follows:
>>>
>>> "Our Travis CI capacity is very limited and we will not be
>>> increasing that limit in the foreseeable future. If you are not happy 
>>> with
>>> it, we suggest you switch to GitHub Actions or our Jenkins/BuildBot CI
>>> instead.”
>>>
>>> Given this, I think it would make sense for us to explore
>>> alternatives.To try this out, I’ve created a CI build pipeline using 
>>> Github
>>> Actions and raised a PR for it (
>>> https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1955). This is a “parallel”
>>> pipeline - in that I haven’t removed the Travis one. So once this PR is
>>> merged, we should get both a Github build as well as a Travis build for
>>> each PR.
>>>
>>> My suggestion would be to merge this and see how the two compare for
>>> the next week or so. If Github is more reliable / faster, then we could
>>> switch off the Travis one altogether.
>>>
>>> The only caveat is: I have not been able to test this very
>>> comprehensively, as the actions do not run unless the PR is merged. They
>>> seem to work OK in my own repository, but I can’t guarantee they will
>>> immediately work in the Apache repo. So there may be some false failures
>>> initially until we get this build working without issues. However, 
>>> despite
>>> the possible “noise” from these failures, I think this would be a
>>> worthwhile exercise.
>>>
>>> Any concerns? If not, I can merge the actions in tomorrow and then
>>> address any issues to get them working asap.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Petri
>>>
>>>

 --
 *Ed Cable*
 President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
 edca...@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649

 *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *http://mifos.org
   

Re: CI based on GitHub Actions

[Nazeer Hussain Shaik]

+1

Thanks,
Nazeer

On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 2:42 AM Bharath Gowda  wrote:

> +1 :)
>
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021, 2:07 AM Awasum Yannick  wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 5:36 PM Ed Cable  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 from my side and I think @Michael Vorburger  has
>>> been a fan as well as we've implemented it as CI for Mifos/OpenMF repos.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 9:08 AM Aleksandar Vidakovic <
>>> chee...@monkeysintown.com> wrote:
>>>
 +1 for Github Actions... use it for quite a while and it's really
 reliable.

 On Thu, 4 Nov 2021, 16:20 Benura Abeywardena, 
 wrote:

> Hi Petri,
>
> Good idea !
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Benura
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:25 PM Petri Tuomola 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> As I’m sure you’ve noticed, Travis builds have recently been getting
>> more and more unreliable: either there is a queue of several hours before
>> the build is executed, or in many cases no build is triggered at all. 
>> This
>> seems to be due to the limits on Apache’s Travis account. I asked about
>> this in the Apache Infra JIRA, and the answer was as follows:
>>
>> "Our Travis CI capacity is very limited and we will not be
>> increasing that limit in the foreseeable future. If you are not happy 
>> with
>> it, we suggest you switch to GitHub Actions or our Jenkins/BuildBot CI
>> instead.”
>>
>> Given this, I think it would make sense for us to explore
>> alternatives.To try this out, I’ve created a CI build pipeline using 
>> Github
>> Actions and raised a PR for it (
>> https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1955). This is a “parallel”
>> pipeline - in that I haven’t removed the Travis one. So once this PR is
>> merged, we should get both a Github build as well as a Travis build for
>> each PR.
>>
>> My suggestion would be to merge this and see how the two compare for
>> the next week or so. If Github is more reliable / faster, then we could
>> switch off the Travis one altogether.
>>
>> The only caveat is: I have not been able to test this very
>> comprehensively, as the actions do not run unless the PR is merged. They
>> seem to work OK in my own repository, but I can’t guarantee they will
>> immediately work in the Apache repo. So there may be some false failures
>> initially until we get this build working without issues. However, 
>> despite
>> the possible “noise” from these failures, I think this would be a
>> worthwhile exercise.
>>
>> Any concerns? If not, I can merge the actions in tomorrow and then
>> address any issues to get them working asap.
>>
>> Regards
>> Petri
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Ed Cable*
>>> President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
>>> edca...@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649
>>>
>>> *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *http://mifos.org
>>>   
>>>
>>>

Re: CI based on GitHub Actions

[Bharath Gowda]

+1 :)

On Fri, Nov 5, 2021, 2:07 AM Awasum Yannick  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 5:36 PM Ed Cable  wrote:
>
>> +1 from my side and I think @Michael Vorburger  has
>> been a fan as well as we've implemented it as CI for Mifos/OpenMF repos.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 9:08 AM Aleksandar Vidakovic <
>> chee...@monkeysintown.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for Github Actions... use it for quite a while and it's really
>>> reliable.
>>>
>>> On Thu, 4 Nov 2021, 16:20 Benura Abeywardena, 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Petri,

 Good idea !

 Thanks & Regards,
 Benura

 On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:25 PM Petri Tuomola 
 wrote:

> Hi all
>
> As I’m sure you’ve noticed, Travis builds have recently been getting
> more and more unreliable: either there is a queue of several hours before
> the build is executed, or in many cases no build is triggered at all. This
> seems to be due to the limits on Apache’s Travis account. I asked about
> this in the Apache Infra JIRA, and the answer was as follows:
>
> "Our Travis CI capacity is very limited and we will not be increasing
> that limit in the foreseeable future. If you are not happy with it, we
> suggest you switch to GitHub Actions or our Jenkins/BuildBot CI instead.
> ”
>
> Given this, I think it would make sense for us to explore
> alternatives.To try this out, I’ve created a CI build pipeline using 
> Github
> Actions and raised a PR for it (
> https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1955). This is a “parallel”
> pipeline - in that I haven’t removed the Travis one. So once this PR is
> merged, we should get both a Github build as well as a Travis build for
> each PR.
>
> My suggestion would be to merge this and see how the two compare for
> the next week or so. If Github is more reliable / faster, then we could
> switch off the Travis one altogether.
>
> The only caveat is: I have not been able to test this very
> comprehensively, as the actions do not run unless the PR is merged. They
> seem to work OK in my own repository, but I can’t guarantee they will
> immediately work in the Apache repo. So there may be some false failures
> initially until we get this build working without issues. However, despite
> the possible “noise” from these failures, I think this would be a
> worthwhile exercise.
>
> Any concerns? If not, I can merge the actions in tomorrow and then
> address any issues to get them working asap.
>
> Regards
> Petri
>
>
>>
>> --
>> *Ed Cable*
>> President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
>> edca...@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649
>>
>> *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *http://mifos.org
>>   
>>
>>

Re: CI based on GitHub Actions

[Awasum Yannick]

+1

On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 5:36 PM Ed Cable  wrote:

> +1 from my side and I think @Michael Vorburger  has
> been a fan as well as we've implemented it as CI for Mifos/OpenMF repos.
>
> Ed
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 9:08 AM Aleksandar Vidakovic <
> chee...@monkeysintown.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 for Github Actions... use it for quite a while and it's really
>> reliable.
>>
>> On Thu, 4 Nov 2021, 16:20 Benura Abeywardena,  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Petri,
>>>
>>> Good idea !
>>>
>>> Thanks & Regards,
>>> Benura
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:25 PM Petri Tuomola 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi all

 As I’m sure you’ve noticed, Travis builds have recently been getting
 more and more unreliable: either there is a queue of several hours before
 the build is executed, or in many cases no build is triggered at all. This
 seems to be due to the limits on Apache’s Travis account. I asked about
 this in the Apache Infra JIRA, and the answer was as follows:

 "Our Travis CI capacity is very limited and we will not be increasing
 that limit in the foreseeable future. If you are not happy with it, we
 suggest you switch to GitHub Actions or our Jenkins/BuildBot CI instead.
 ”

 Given this, I think it would make sense for us to explore
 alternatives.To try this out, I’ve created a CI build pipeline using Github
 Actions and raised a PR for it (
 https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1955). This is a “parallel”
 pipeline - in that I haven’t removed the Travis one. So once this PR is
 merged, we should get both a Github build as well as a Travis build for
 each PR.

 My suggestion would be to merge this and see how the two compare for
 the next week or so. If Github is more reliable / faster, then we could
 switch off the Travis one altogether.

 The only caveat is: I have not been able to test this very
 comprehensively, as the actions do not run unless the PR is merged. They
 seem to work OK in my own repository, but I can’t guarantee they will
 immediately work in the Apache repo. So there may be some false failures
 initially until we get this build working without issues. However, despite
 the possible “noise” from these failures, I think this would be a
 worthwhile exercise.

 Any concerns? If not, I can merge the actions in tomorrow and then
 address any issues to get them working asap.

 Regards
 Petri


>
> --
> *Ed Cable*
> President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
> edca...@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649
>
> *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *http://mifos.org
>   
>
>

Re: CI based on GitHub Actions

[Ed Cable]

+1 from my side and I think @Michael Vorburger  has been
a fan as well as we've implemented it as CI for Mifos/OpenMF repos.

Ed

On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 9:08 AM Aleksandar Vidakovic <
chee...@monkeysintown.com> wrote:

> +1 for Github Actions... use it for quite a while and it's really reliable.
>
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2021, 16:20 Benura Abeywardena,  wrote:
>
>> Hi Petri,
>>
>> Good idea !
>>
>> Thanks & Regards,
>> Benura
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:25 PM Petri Tuomola 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> As I’m sure you’ve noticed, Travis builds have recently been getting
>>> more and more unreliable: either there is a queue of several hours before
>>> the build is executed, or in many cases no build is triggered at all. This
>>> seems to be due to the limits on Apache’s Travis account. I asked about
>>> this in the Apache Infra JIRA, and the answer was as follows:
>>>
>>> "Our Travis CI capacity is very limited and we will not be increasing
>>> that limit in the foreseeable future. If you are not happy with it, we
>>> suggest you switch to GitHub Actions or our Jenkins/BuildBot CI instead.
>>> ”
>>>
>>> Given this, I think it would make sense for us to explore
>>> alternatives.To try this out, I’ve created a CI build pipeline using Github
>>> Actions and raised a PR for it (
>>> https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1955). This is a “parallel”
>>> pipeline - in that I haven’t removed the Travis one. So once this PR is
>>> merged, we should get both a Github build as well as a Travis build for
>>> each PR.
>>>
>>> My suggestion would be to merge this and see how the two compare for the
>>> next week or so. If Github is more reliable / faster, then we could switch
>>> off the Travis one altogether.
>>>
>>> The only caveat is: I have not been able to test this very
>>> comprehensively, as the actions do not run unless the PR is merged. They
>>> seem to work OK in my own repository, but I can’t guarantee they will
>>> immediately work in the Apache repo. So there may be some false failures
>>> initially until we get this build working without issues. However, despite
>>> the possible “noise” from these failures, I think this would be a
>>> worthwhile exercise.
>>>
>>> Any concerns? If not, I can merge the actions in tomorrow and then
>>> address any issues to get them working asap.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Petri
>>>
>>>

-- 
*Ed Cable*
President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
edca...@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649

*Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *http://mifos.org
  

Re: CI based on GitHub Actions

[Aleksandar Vidakovic]

+1 for Github Actions... use it for quite a while and it's really reliable.

On Thu, 4 Nov 2021, 16:20 Benura Abeywardena,  wrote:

> Hi Petri,
>
> Good idea !
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Benura
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:25 PM Petri Tuomola 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> As I’m sure you’ve noticed, Travis builds have recently been getting more
>> and more unreliable: either there is a queue of several hours before the
>> build is executed, or in many cases no build is triggered at all. This
>> seems to be due to the limits on Apache’s Travis account. I asked about
>> this in the Apache Infra JIRA, and the answer was as follows:
>>
>> "Our Travis CI capacity is very limited and we will not be increasing
>> that limit in the foreseeable future. If you are not happy with it, we
>> suggest you switch to GitHub Actions or our Jenkins/BuildBot CI instead.”
>>
>> Given this, I think it would make sense for us to explore alternatives.To
>> try this out, I’ve created a CI build pipeline using Github Actions and
>> raised a PR for it (https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1955). This
>> is a “parallel” pipeline - in that I haven’t removed the Travis one. So
>> once this PR is merged, we should get both a Github build as well as a
>> Travis build for each PR.
>>
>> My suggestion would be to merge this and see how the two compare for the
>> next week or so. If Github is more reliable / faster, then we could switch
>> off the Travis one altogether.
>>
>> The only caveat is: I have not been able to test this very
>> comprehensively, as the actions do not run unless the PR is merged. They
>> seem to work OK in my own repository, but I can’t guarantee they will
>> immediately work in the Apache repo. So there may be some false failures
>> initially until we get this build working without issues. However, despite
>> the possible “noise” from these failures, I think this would be a
>> worthwhile exercise.
>>
>> Any concerns? If not, I can merge the actions in tomorrow and then
>> address any issues to get them working asap.
>>
>> Regards
>> Petri
>>
>>

Re: CI based on GitHub Actions

[Benura Abeywardena]

Hi Petri,

Good idea !

Thanks & Regards,
Benura

On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 8:25 PM Petri Tuomola 
wrote:

> Hi all
>
> As I’m sure you’ve noticed, Travis builds have recently been getting more
> and more unreliable: either there is a queue of several hours before the
> build is executed, or in many cases no build is triggered at all. This
> seems to be due to the limits on Apache’s Travis account. I asked about
> this in the Apache Infra JIRA, and the answer was as follows:
>
> "Our Travis CI capacity is very limited and we will not be increasing
> that limit in the foreseeable future. If you are not happy with it, we
> suggest you switch to GitHub Actions or our Jenkins/BuildBot CI instead.”
>
> Given this, I think it would make sense for us to explore alternatives.To
> try this out, I’ve created a CI build pipeline using Github Actions and
> raised a PR for it (https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1955). This
> is a “parallel” pipeline - in that I haven’t removed the Travis one. So
> once this PR is merged, we should get both a Github build as well as a
> Travis build for each PR.
>
> My suggestion would be to merge this and see how the two compare for the
> next week or so. If Github is more reliable / faster, then we could switch
> off the Travis one altogether.
>
> The only caveat is: I have not been able to test this very
> comprehensively, as the actions do not run unless the PR is merged. They
> seem to work OK in my own repository, but I can’t guarantee they will
> immediately work in the Apache repo. So there may be some false failures
> initially until we get this build working without issues. However, despite
> the possible “noise” from these failures, I think this would be a
> worthwhile exercise.
>
> Any concerns? If not, I can merge the actions in tomorrow and then address
> any issues to get them working asap.
>
> Regards
> Petri
>
>