Not surprisingly I like Travis, because it outsources the “tests” and that we can fix them by editing .travis.yml, which can be done by someone without access to the Jenkins servers/slaves.
At the very least I agree with Miguel which should keep the mvn build, and possible rat etc… Personally, I think that before dumping Travis we should look into why the tests time out or are skipped. Its strange and I have not had time to check what’s going on. So I understand why you guys are proposing this, at this point I am: -1 (but I can revert if you guys feel strongly and feel its urgent). I’d like to see 4.6 released and then we can check what’s happening with Travis. > On Oct 29, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The apache build reports rats, findbugs, pmd, coverage etc. > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Miguel Ferreira < > mferre...@schubergphilis.com> wrote: > >> It would add speed. >> >> Just for running maven we could move the travis build to their docker >> based infra which is faster than what we use now. >> I’m guess that the apache build does more stuff like packaging RPMs, but >> I’m not sure there. >> >> \ Miguel Ferreira >> mferre...@schubergphilis.com<mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com> >> >> >> >> >> On 29 Oct 2015, at 11:27, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com<mailto: >> daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Miguel Ferreira < >> mferre...@schubergphilis.com<mailto:mferre...@schubergphilis.com>> wrote: >> >> However, I would still find it valuable to have travis run a single >> command: >> mvn clean isntall -P developer,systemvv >> >> That is because, still many people commenting on PRs don’t even do that. >> In addition this would be faster than the Jenkins build, so it would >> provide faster feedback. >> >> >> At the risk of turning this into a discuss thread; It sound a reasonable >> request but what would that add to the analysis run at apache? >> >> >> >> -- >> Daan >> >> > > > -- > Daan
