Le 02/07/2019 à 19:52, Micah Kornfield a écrit :
> Would GCP Cloud Build work [1].
The number one question is: does it offer *copious* capacity for open
source projects, for free? If it does not, it's not useful to bother
investigating it IMHO (there are dozens or even hundreds of online CI
prov
Would GCP Cloud Build work [1].
When trying to install it looks like the permissions required are:
* Read access to code
* Read access to issues, metadata, and pull requests
* Read and write access to checks and commit statuses
It looks like the free tier is quite limited, but I can try to invest
Le 02/07/2019 à 18:22, Eric Erhardt a écrit :
> Has anyone considered using Azure DevOps for CI and patch validation?
Tried indeed and failed:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17030
Regards
Antoine.
inal Message-
From: Wes McKinney
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 12:06 PM
To: dev@arrow.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Ongoing Travis CI service degradation
Based on the discussion in
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FINFR
st it
should be the same place. If source code is changed, how to
test may be changed too.
Thanks,
--
kou
In
"Re: [DISCUSS] Ongoing Travis CI service degradation" on Sun, 30 Jun 2019
21:46:42 +0200,
Krisztián Szűcs wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 12:03 AM Sutou Kouh
ccurred by external
dependencies) and so on. So our needs for the structured
artifacts feature may be limited.
Thanks,
--
kou
In <87blyf3hda@jedbrown.org>
"Re: [DISCUSS] Ongoing Travis CI service degradation" on Sat, 29 Jun 2019
21:02:41 -0600,
Jed Brown wrote:
> Sutou Ko
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 3:03 PM Krisztián Szűcs
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 9:12 PM Wes McKinney wrote:
>
> > I've justed created a parent JIRA for Docker-ifying all of the Linux
> > builds in Travis CI
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-5801
> >
> > I did Java here since
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 9:12 PM Wes McKinney wrote:
> I've justed created a parent JIRA for Docker-ifying all of the Linux
> builds in Travis CI
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-5801
>
> I did Java here since it was one of the easier ones
>
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/47
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 6:27 PM Wes McKinney wrote:
> > GitLab is currently more mature but on the other hand we're already on
> > GitHub. We should probably evaluate both options if we go this way.
>
> We have to keep the code repository on GitHub because all Apache
> projects are on GitHub now.
rror repository for CI on
> https://gitlab.com/ , https://gitlab.com/ursa-labs/arrow
> will be a good URL.
>
>
> Thanks,
> --
> kou
>
> In
> "Re: [DISCUSS] Ongoing Travis CI service degradation" on Sat, 29 Jun
> 2019 14:54:19 -0500,
> Wes McKinney wrote
I've justed created a parent JIRA for Docker-ifying all of the Linux
builds in Travis CI
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-5801
I did Java here since it was one of the easier ones
https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/4761
Expensive Docker images can be pushed to @ursalab on Docker Hub
> GitLab is currently more mature but on the other hand we're already on
> GitHub. We should probably evaluate both options if we go this way.
We have to keep the code repository on GitHub because all Apache
projects are on GitHub now. How projects manage patches and CI is up
to each project, thou
Sutou Kouhei writes:
> How about creating a mirror repository on
> https://gitlab.com/ only to run CI jobs?
>
> This is an idea that is described in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-5673 .
>
> GitLab CI can attach external workers. So we can increase CI
> capacity by adding our new w
gt; repository.
> * GitLab CI uses .gitlab-ci.yml like .travis.yml for
> Travis CI.
>
>
> If we create a mirror repository for CI on
> https://gitlab.com/ , https://gitlab.com/ursa-labs/arrow
> will be a good URL.
>
>
> Thanks,
> --
> kou
>
>
bs in https://github.com/apache/arrow
repository.
* GitLab CI uses .gitlab-ci.yml like .travis.yml for
Travis CI.
If we create a mirror repository for CI on
https://gitlab.com/ , https://gitlab.com/ursa-labs/arrow
will be a good URL.
Thanks,
--
kou
In
"Re: [DISCUSS] Ongoing
hi Rok,
I would guess that GitHub Actions will have the same resource and
hardware limitations that Travis CI and Appveyor currently have, as
well as organization-level resource contention with the rest of the
ASF.
We need to have dedicated, powerful hardware (more cores, more RAM),
with more cap
GitHub Actions are currently in limited public beta and appear to be
similar to GitLab CI: https://github.com/features/actions
More here: https://help.github.com/en/articles/about-github-actions
Rok
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 7:06 PM Wes McKinney wrote:
> Based on the discussion in
> https://issue
Based on the discussion in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 it does not appear
to be ASF Infra's inclination to allow projects to donate money to the
Foundation to get more build resources on Travis CI. Our likely only
solution is going to be to reduce our dependence on Travis CI.
Also note that the situation with AppVeyor isn't much better.
Any "free as in beer" CI service is probably too capacity-limited for
our needs now, unless it allows private workers (which apparently Gitlab
CI does).
Regards
Antoine.
Le 26/06/2019 à 18:32, Wes McKinney a écrit :
> It seems tha
It seems that there is intermittent Apache-wide degradation of Travis
CI services -- I was looking at https://travis-ci.org/apache today and
there appeared to be a stretch of 3-4 hours where no queued builds on
github.com/apache were running at all. I initially thought that the
issue was contention
20 matches
Mail list logo
