Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

On Fri, 27 May 2022 at 13:04, Matt Juntunen wrote: > +1 as well. > > Thanks, Alex! I have spent quite a bit of time refreshing the Travis > build page over and over waiting for my builds to start, so this will > be a welcome change :-) > I have added workflows to: - Numbers - Statistics -

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

+1 as well. Thanks, Alex! I have spent quite a bit of time refreshing the Travis build page over and over waiting for my builds to start, so this will be a welcome change :-) -Matt J On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 3:55 PM Bruno Kinoshita wrote: > > +1 > > Thanks Alex! > > On Fri, 27 May 2022, 3:13 am

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

+1 Thanks Alex! On Fri, 27 May 2022, 3:13 am Alex Herbert, wrote: > Continuing the thread about switching Travis to GitHub actions... > > Commons RNG has been running travis and GH actions in parallel now for 6 > weeks as an experiment. > > Some PRs have been missed by Travis. The master

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

Continuing the thread about switching Travis to GitHub actions... Commons RNG has been running travis and GH actions in parallel now for 6 weeks as an experiment. Some PRs have been missed by Travis. The master branch continues to be built for all commits. The latest PR was built but about 12

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 at 12:42, Eric Bresie wrote: > > Not sure if this is applicable here but is there a concern about limits of > amount of usage on GItHub activities (and/or Travis) for a given organization > across all of the Apache / Common projects/repositories? You would need to raise

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

Not sure if this is applicable here but is there a concern about limits of amount of usage on GItHub activities (and/or Travis) for a given organization across all of the Apache / Common projects/repositories? Eric Bresie ebre...@gmail.com (mailto:ebre...@gmail.com) > On March 29, 2022 at

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

> On Mar 29, 2022, at 10:51 AM, sebb wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 15:27, Rob Tompkins > wrote: >> >> I wonder if the python script will be effective in doing the migration >> properly. I’ll try to carve some time out to help here. > > In the case of Commons,

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 15:27, Rob Tompkins wrote: > > I wonder if the python script will be effective in doing the migration > properly. I’ll try to carve some time out to help here. In the case of Commons, most of the components have very similar needs, so one can probably just copy existing

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

I wonder if the python script will be effective in doing the migration properly. I’ll try to carve some time out to help here. -Rob > On Mar 29, 2022, at 10:19 AM, sebb wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 13:57, Matt Juntunen wrote: >> >> Hi Sebb, >> >> Yep, geometry is still using Travis.

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 13:57, Matt Juntunen wrote: > > Hi Sebb, > > Yep, geometry is still using Travis. I've never used GitHub Actions so > I'm not sure what it's capable of. Are there any specific features it > provides that are driving the migration to it? Or is it more a matter > of community

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 14:43, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > Hello. > > Le mar. 29 mars 2022 à 15:23, Alex Herbert a > écrit : > > > > [...] > > > > The feature I liked from Travis was the integration of coverage reports > > from coveralls. This would red light a PR in the main page if coverage > had

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

Hello. Le mar. 29 mars 2022 à 15:23, Alex Herbert a écrit : > > [...] > > The feature I liked from Travis was the integration of coverage reports > from coveralls. This would red light a PR in the main page if coverage had > dropped. There is no coveralls GHA. I installed the Codecov action for

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 12:22, sebb wrote: > It looks like there is a general move to switch from Travis to GitHub > Actions. > AFAICT the following components are still using Travis: > > geometry > jelly > jxpath > math > numbers > rng > weaver > > Do we need to move these as well? > In terms

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

Hello. Le mar. 29 mars 2022 à 13:22, sebb a écrit : > > It looks like there is a general move to switch from Travis to GitHub Actions. AFAIK, there has never been a clear explanation for that move. > AFAICT the following components are still using Travis: > > geometry > jelly > jxpath > math >

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

Hi Sebb, Yep, geometry is still using Travis. I've never used GitHub Actions so I'm not sure what it's capable of. Are there any specific features it provides that are driving the migration to it? Or is it more a matter of community preference? Either way is fine, I'm just curious. Regards, Matt

[ALL] components still using Travis

It looks like there is a general move to switch from Travis to GitHub Actions. AFAICT the following components are still using Travis: geometry jelly jxpath math numbers rng weaver Do we need to move these as well? BTW, emails from GHA runs can now be directed to project mailing lists, which is