Thanks, done.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-12301?jql=project%20%3D%20INFRA
> On Jul 15, 2016, at 6:31 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980)
> wrote:
>
> Hey Matt,
>
> Apache infra supports Travis CI - just file a ticket and they will
> set it up :)
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Chief Architect
> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
> Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++
> Director, Information Retrieval and Data Science Group (IRDS)
> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> WWW: http://irds.usc.edu/
> ++
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/15/16, 2:05 PM, "Matt Post" wrote:
>
>> Question for Chris and/or Lewis:
>>
>> So, Kellen and I took a look at this today, and it looks like a good
>> solution. The problem is that it integrates with projects hosted on Github
>> that you have write access to. In order to make use of this, we'd need to
>> rearrange the setup we have.
>>
>> Currently, we push to a repo at git.apache.org, and that is then pushed down
>> to github.com/apache/incubator-joshua. This lets us use the Github repo for
>> receiving things like pull requests and so on, but we do not have write
>> access to it, so merges and so on have to be handled manually.
>>
>> To use Travis-ci, we'd need to re-enginneer this. Apache would need to give
>> us write access to github.com/apache/incubator-joshua, or we'd need to use
>> another official host for Joshua. We'd then use git.apache.org as the
>> mirror, instead of the other way around.
>>
>> Is there any way that this could be done? I understand Apache's arguments
>> about keeping discussions at home, since github may not last forever.
>> However, it seems like we could do this if we use git.apache.org as the
>> backup mirror, and continue to use JIRA for discussions and so on. In
>> general, Github has a lot of tools that could help with development. It
>> would be nice if we could make use of them while still checking off Apache's
>> logging requirements.
>>
>> matt
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 11, 2016, at 6:50 PM, kellen sunderland
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry should have provided the link to this page: https://travis-ci.org/ .
>>> If you scroll down a bit on that page there's a Pull Request flow section,
>>> it's the flow I'd be most in favour of. There's also a decent (but rushed)
>>> demo here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uft5KBimzyk . We actually don't
>>> need to do a lot of the work that he demos, i.e. no node or gulp
>>> configuration. Our setup is close enough to default a default java project
>>> that we just have to tell it to build java 8 and then it runs maven
>>> properly.
>>>
>>> Using a CI server would have some aspects that are similar to the branching
>>> document you mention, and some benefits that are a bit orthogonal. Most of
>>> these benefits have to do with unit testing, which isn't covered in the doc.
>>>
>>> First the orthogonal benefits: The main benefit we would get from using CI
>>> is that we guarantee code in our repo is never broken. That is to say
>>> tests always pass and it always builds correctly. CI servers are really
>>> useful to prevent problems where one developer may have everything working
>>> properly on his/her machine, but when they later realize it's not working
>>> on another devs machine. A good example of this is the class-based-lm-test
>>> we pushed recently. It works fine for me locally but it would fail for
>>> anyone without kenlm.so. There are many other examples (javadoc errors,
>>> code style, etc) but what will happen in these cases is we'll see a big
>>> obvious 'The build has problems' message in the PR page on Github. If the
>>> CI server runs of all of our code quality checks and finds that everything
>>> is good we'll get a big 'This PR is ready to merge' message.
>>>
>>> Now to the part that overlaps a bit with branching. There are various
>>> branching strategies that we could adopt for the project. The master / dev
>>> branch one is a possibility. I'd suggest we try commit code strictly in
>>> PRs rather than pushing to git. This would be the equivalent of feature
>>> branching from your link. The reason I'd suggest that approach is that
>>> from what I've seen it'll be dead simple to get working with Github and
>>> Travis, and it gives us the same goal of having a stable master branch.
>>>
>>> If you'd like we can walk through setting this up together on a forked
>>> version of our Github repo. We could do a