+1 for letting Jenkins rule alone :)
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Thomas Groh <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > +1! This will be really helpful when looking at my PRs; I basically get > no > > signal from the current state of the github UI, and this will restore > that > > to giving me very strong positive signal. > > > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Davor Bonaci <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Early on in the project, we've discussed our CI needs and concluded to > > use > > > ASF-hosted Jenkins as our preferred tool of choice. We've also enabled > > > Travis-CI, which covered some scenarios that Jenkins couldn't do at the > > > time, but with the idea to transition to Jenkins eventually. > > > > > > Over the last few months, Travis-CI has been broken consistently, and > > > several different kinds of infrastructure breakages have been added, > one > > on > > > top of another. This has caused plenty of cost and confusion. In > > > particular, contributors often get confused as to which signal they > > should > > > care about. > > > > > > At the same time, Jenkins capabilities have improved greatly: multiple > > > parallel precommits are now supported, checked-in DSL support, > pipelined > > > matrix builds, Google's donation of Jenkins executors more than > doubled, > > > and others. > > > > > > So, based on the previous consensus and the fact the signal was broken > > for > > > a long time, Jason and I went and asked Infra to disable Travis-CI on > our > > > code repository. (Website repository was disabled months ago.) > > > > > > I believe there should be minimal impact of this. The only two elements > > of > > > the Travis matrix that were passing (still) are Python SDK on the > Linux & > > > Mac. Linux one can be trivially moved to Jenkins -- and I know Jason is > > > looking at that. Mac coverage is the only loss at the moment, but is > > > something we can likely address in the (near) future. > > > > > > I'm excited that we finally managed to unify our CI tooling, and can > make > > > efforts on improving and maintaining one system as opposed to two. That > > > said, please comment if you have any worries about this or ideas for > > > further CI improvements ;-) > > > > > > Davor > > > > > >
