Re: Travis job on github

2021-02-03 Thread Daniel Widdis
The delays at Travis were primarily due to a few things: - Limited capacity and high demand - Abuse of the free service by cryptocurrency miners The problem of the crypto miners has been pretty much resolved, but 1 would still be an issue on Travis if there hadn't been a mass exit to GHA last

Re: Travis job on github

2021-02-03 Thread Weiwei Yang
Hi Greg Agreed. No assumption has been made. I was just hoping that GitHub can hold it up. Just in case the delays come back again, the Apache community can look for a solution together. Asking for help from Microsoft is just one possible option. Weiwei On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 2:40 AM Greg

Re: Travis job on github

2021-02-03 Thread Greg Stein
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021, 01:36 Weiwei Yang wrote: >... > we can communicate with Microsoft about giving the Apache > repo some extra resources. > I guess it won't be a big problem to such a wealthy company  > Their wealth does not mean they can give us anything we want. That is a fallacy. Their

Re: Travis job on github

2021-02-02 Thread Weiwei Yang
At the beginning, the latency of running Travis jobs was not so bad. I have the same concern when more and more projects move to GHA free plans, delays may occur. As a community, I suggest to monitor the state of our jobs, if things really go badly, we can communicate with Microsoft about giving

Re: Travis job on github

2021-02-02 Thread Daniel Widdis
GHA is backed by Microsoft's Azure cloud. I'm sure they can handle the load. If they cared, they'd change the rerun all jobs option to allow rerunning a single job! On 2/2/21, 9:43 PM, "leerho" wrote: Agreed! We are processing GitHub Actions in less than 2 minutes, compared to 10

Re: Travis job on github

2021-02-02 Thread leerho
Agreed! We are processing GitHub Actions in less than 2 minutes, compared to 10 hours with Travis-CI. Of course, as more teams pile onto GHA, this will certainly change :) On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 6:07 PM Xiangdong Huang wrote: > Hi Leerho, > > Yes, indeed that is what we need to do. > > @Wewei

Re: Travis job on github

2021-02-02 Thread Xiangdong Huang
Hi Leerho, Yes, indeed that is what we need to do. @Wewei Yang, Congrats! Best, --- Xiangdong Huang School of Software, Tsinghua University leerho 于2021年2月3日周三 上午4:17写道: > Xiangdong, I noticed in your GHA yaml script you included the > Coveralls-repo-token

Re: Travis job on github

2021-02-02 Thread Weiwei Yang
Just a quick update. The YuniKorn team has done the migration from Travis to the github action, so far it looks great. The pipeline now only needs ~20 minutes comparing to the past 6~12hours. We also use codecov and it also works great with github action. We are pretty happy with this migration,

Re: Travis job on github

2021-02-02 Thread leerho
Xiangdong, I noticed in your GHA yaml script you included the Coveralls-repo-token in plaintext, which is not recommended. You can have INFRA load the token into the GitHub repo, which you can then acquire securely using GHA secrets. That is what we do anyway :) Cheers, Lee. On Tue, Feb 2,

Re: Travis job on github

2021-02-02 Thread Yuanbo Liu
It would be great if we could run a travis job on a private machine. I believe some companies would be glad to donate machines for unit testing of open source projects. On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 3:10 PM leerho wrote: > Xiangdong, > Thank you, I pretty much came up with the same solution.

Re: Travis job on github

2021-02-01 Thread leerho
Xiangdong, Thank you, I pretty much came up with the same solution. Nonetheless, It will be interesting to see how your approach differs from mine, I'm sure I will learn something! Cheers, Lee. On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 8:04 PM Xiangdong Huang wrote: > Hi leerho, > > > because the current GHA >

Re: Travis job on github

2021-02-01 Thread Xiangdong Huang
Hi leerho, > because the current GHA adapter for Coveralls only supports LCOV format which Jacoco doesn’t generate. Actually, we can find some way to bypass the LCOV requirements, that is... do not use official github action provided by coverall. In our project (Apache IoTDB), we use maven to

Re: Travis job on github

2021-01-31 Thread Matt Sicker
It's probably simpler to write some sort of LCOV format converter to something supported by your destination build system than it would be to rewrite the rest of your toolchain, but that's just conjecture. On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 at 20:25, leerho wrote: > > Sorry, I must be missing something. I

Re: Travis job on github

2021-01-31 Thread leerho
Sorry, I must be missing something. I don't see LCOV format in the list :) Doesn't this mean a complete rework of our toolchain ? On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 1:19 PM Matt Sicker wrote: > Using https://github.com/jenkinsci/warnings-ng-plugin (already > installed) combined with the github

Re: Travis job on github

2021-01-31 Thread Matt Sicker
Using https://github.com/jenkinsci/warnings-ng-plugin (already installed) combined with the github integration (also installed), you can get that in our CloudBees CI instance. They support a lot of formats: https://github.com/jenkinsci/warnings-ng-plugin/blob/master/SUPPORTED-FORMATS.md On Sun,

Re: Travis job on github

2021-01-30 Thread leerho
I am trying to move from Travis to GitHub actions for exactly this reason, but in that process discovered that our coverage reporting chain of Maven/Java/Jacoco/Coveralls does not port to GHA because the current GHA adapter for Coveralls only supports LCOV format which Jacoco doesn’t generate.

Re: Travis job on github

2021-01-28 Thread Weiwei Yang
Oh, that's good. Then we have no problem at all. Thank you Daniel for pointing this out : ) On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 9:48 PM Daniel Widdis wrote: > The quota is for private repos. Public/open-source repos are essentially > unlimited. > > On 1/28/21, 9:44 PM, "Weiwei Yang" wrote: > > Thank

Re: Travis job on github

2021-01-28 Thread Daniel Widdis
The quota is for private repos. Public/open-source repos are essentially unlimited. On 1/28/21, 9:44 PM, "Weiwei Yang" wrote: Thank you all for the suggestions. Looks like github action is an option, we'll give a try. Noticed they offer 2000 action minutes/month[1] for free, I

Re: Travis job on github

2021-01-28 Thread Weiwei Yang
Thank you all for the suggestions. Looks like github action is an option, we'll give a try. Noticed they offer 2000 action minutes/month[1] for free, I think that should be enough for most cases. [1]

Re: Travis job on github

2021-01-28 Thread Matt Sicker
There's also some hosted CI services here like Jenkins, BuildBot, etc., which may have less queueing issues depending on which service attracts the most build minute usage. On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 20:23, Jon Malkin wrote: > > There was an issue a few months ago where the GitHub Actions queue was

Re: Travis job on github

2021-01-28 Thread Jon Malkin
There was an issue a few months ago where the GitHub Actions queue was very laggy for Apache jobs, so just make sure you're trying to be efficient about it. It's also a shared resource. That said, (part of) our recently graduated project uses GitHub Actions and we've been happy overall. Another

Re: Travis job on github

2021-01-28 Thread Juan Pan
Hi Weiwei, +1 for Jeff’s suggestion. We also transfer to GitHub Action, and It generally works well so far. Juan Pan (Trista) Senior DBA & PMC of Apache ShardingSphere E-mail: panj...@apache.org

Re: Travis job on github

2021-01-28 Thread Jeff Zhang
Hi Weiwei, May you can consider to use github action for CI Weiwei Yang 于2021年1月29日周五 上午7:58写道: > Hi, > > The Apache YuniKorn (Incubating) team leverages Travis to run pre-commit > checks, but recently the Travis Job stays in the queue for long hours (6+ > hours, sometimes more than 10

Travis job on github

2021-01-28 Thread Weiwei Yang
Hi, The Apache YuniKorn (Incubating) team leverages Travis to run pre-commit checks, but recently the Travis Job stays in the queue for long hours (6+ hours, sometimes more than 10 hours) . This is highly impacting the productivity. I have reached the Travis support and the response I got was the