OK, it seems like there is general consensus. Not too much action on the document. I will summarize the gaps that don't have an answer in the doc, and my new opinion of how important they are:
- [required] Run specific non-default workflow on PR - [required] View history of a workflow - [required] Publish nightly snapshots - [required] Run workflow on dedicated worker pool for performance testing - [important but not required] Summarize flakiness statistics of one or all workflows - [important but not required] History of all/many workflows in a single view - [nice to have] History of specific test case (not just the workflow level) Do any of these seem like I got the importance wrong? Kenn On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 9:09 AM Austin Bennett <aus...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 > > Also would help address a good amount of what concerns me that was [sorta] > raised by https://lists.apache.org/thread/7jr99nc5xsb3ft1d75kb0ml32bzw89rv > > > > Once we think this is something we want to do, but might be > blocked/concerned because of lack of definitively comparable features, I'd > be happy to take a look at what exists in the wider ecosystem or could be > built. > > Cheers - > > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 11:10 AM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1 Github Actions are more intuitive and easy to modify and test for >> everyone. >> Also Beam wins because that makes one less system to maintain. >> >> Regards, >> Ismaël >> >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 5:50 PM Danny McCormick via dev >> <dev@beam.apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > Thanks for kicking this conversation off. I'm +1 on migrating, but only >> once we've found a specific replacement for easy observability (which >> workflows have been failing lately, and how often) and trigger phrases (for >> retries and workflows that aren't automatically kicked off but should be >> run for extra validation, e.g. postcommits). Until we have viable >> replacements, I don't think we should make the move. Publishing nightly >> snapshots is eventually also a must to fully migrate, but probably doesn't >> need to block us from making progress here. >> > >> > With those caveats, the reason that I'm +1 on moving is that our >> Jenkins reliability has been rough. Since I joined the project in January, >> I can think of 3 different incidents that significantly harmed our ability >> to do work. >> > >> > 1. Jenkins triggers cause multi-day outage - this led to a multi-day >> code freeze, and we lost our trigger functionality for days afterwards. >> Investigating/restoring our state ate up a pretty full week for me. >> > 2. Jenkins plugin cause multi-day outage - this led to multiple days of >> Jenkins downtime before eventually being resolved by Infra. >> > 3. Cert issues cause many workers to go down - I don't have a thread >> for this because I handled most of the investigation the day of, but many >> of our workers went down for around a day and nobody noticed until queue >> time reached 6+ hours for each workflow. >> > >> > There may be others that I'm overlooking. >> > >> > GitHub Actions isn't a magic bullet to fix these problems, but it >> minimizes the amount of infra that we're maintaining ourselves, increases >> the isolation between workflows (catastrophic failure is less likely), has >> uptime guarantees, and is more likely to receive investment going forward >> (we're likely to get increasing benefits over time for free). We've also >> done a lot of exploration in this area already, so we're not starting from >> scratch. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Danny >> > >> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:32 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> As you probably noticed, there's a lot of work going on around adding >> more GitHub Actions workflows. >> >> >> >> Can we fully migrate to GitHub Actions? Similar to our GitHub Issues >> migration (but less user-facing) it would bring us on to "default" >> infrastructure that more people understand and is maintained by GitHub. >> >> >> >> So far we have hit some serious roadblocks. It isn't just a simple >> migration. We have to weigh doing the work to get there. >> >> >> >> I started a document with a table of the things we get from Jenkins >> that we need to be sure to have for GitHub Actions before we could think >> about migrating: >> >> >> >> https://s.apache.org/beam-jenkins-to-gha >> >> >> >> Can you please help me by adding things that we get from Jenkins, and >> if you know how to get them from GitHub Actions add that too. >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> >> Kenn >> >
