For reference, INFRA-11414 tracks this [1]. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11414
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Davor Bonaci <[email protected]> wrote: > We absolutely could -- that's why we forked over Dataflow's Travis > configuration to start with. With Max's recent fixes to the Flink runner, > this is very viable. > > Travis vs. Jenkins is often a contentious discussion. Common arguments > against Travis are: scalability / capacity, hard to schedule periodic runs, > and inability to automate the release process. There are many pros too; > e.g., automatic coverage on forked repositories. > > We are generally in favor of doing this through Jenkins for the pull > requests, since that is our "official" CI. Many projects do this -- Apache > Thrift is one example [1]. Work on this is in-progress on our side. > > Maintaining both systems is an extra burden, but I feel we'll end up there > sooner or later. Thus, I'm also in favor of enabling the coverage that we > already have. Let's have both for now, and we can always adjust later. > > I'll go ahead and file ticket(s) with INFRA. > > [1] https://github.com/apache/thrift/pull/932 > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Max, >> >> +1 good idea ! >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> >> On 03/08/2016 03:22 PM, Maximilian Michels wrote: >> >>> Hi Beamers, >>> >>> Quick suggestion: Could we enable Travis for the pull request of the >>> GitHub mirror? At the moment we only have Travis for our forks. >>> >>> This would provide contributors with some feedback and also help us to >>> identify problems with the pull requests. I think we only need to tell >>> Infra to enable it for the apache/incubator-beam GitHub project. >>> >>> Best, >>> Max >>> >>> >> -- >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> [email protected] >> http://blog.nanthrax.net >> Talend - http://www.talend.com >> > >
