Hey Matt, Apache infra supports Travis CI - just file a ticket and they will set it up :)
Cheers, Chris ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 Email: [email protected] WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Director, Information Retrieval and Data Science Group (IRDS) Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA WWW: http://irds.usc.edu/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On 7/15/16, 2:05 PM, "Matt Post" <[email protected]> wrote: >Question for Chris and/or Lewis: > >So, Kellen and I took a look at this today, and it looks like a good solution. >The problem is that it integrates with projects hosted on Github that you have >write access to. In order to make use of this, we'd need to rearrange the >setup we have. > >Currently, we push to a repo at git.apache.org, and that is then pushed down >to github.com/apache/incubator-joshua. This lets us use the Github repo for >receiving things like pull requests and so on, but we do not have write access >to it, so merges and so on have to be handled manually. > >To use Travis-ci, we'd need to re-enginneer this. Apache would need to give us >write access to github.com/apache/incubator-joshua, or we'd need to use >another official host for Joshua. We'd then use git.apache.org as the mirror, >instead of the other way around. > >Is there any way that this could be done? I understand Apache's arguments >about keeping discussions at home, since github may not last forever. However, >it seems like we could do this if we use git.apache.org as the backup mirror, >and continue to use JIRA for discussions and so on. In general, Github has a >lot of tools that could help with development. It would be nice if we could >make use of them while still checking off Apache's logging requirements. > >matt > > > >> On Jul 11, 2016, at 6:50 PM, kellen sunderland <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Sorry should have provided the link to this page: https://travis-ci.org/ . >> If you scroll down a bit on that page there's a Pull Request flow section, >> it's the flow I'd be most in favour of. There's also a decent (but rushed) >> demo here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uft5KBimzyk . We actually don't >> need to do a lot of the work that he demos, i.e. no node or gulp >> configuration. Our setup is close enough to default a default java project >> that we just have to tell it to build java 8 and then it runs maven >> properly. >> >> Using a CI server would have some aspects that are similar to the branching >> document you mention, and some benefits that are a bit orthogonal. Most of >> these benefits have to do with unit testing, which isn't covered in the doc. >> >> First the orthogonal benefits: The main benefit we would get from using CI >> is that we guarantee code in our repo is never broken. That is to say >> tests always pass and it always builds correctly. CI servers are really >> useful to prevent problems where one developer may have everything working >> properly on his/her machine, but when they later realize it's not working >> on another devs machine. A good example of this is the class-based-lm-test >> we pushed recently. It works fine for me locally but it would fail for >> anyone without kenlm.so. There are many other examples (javadoc errors, >> code style, etc) but what will happen in these cases is we'll see a big >> obvious 'The build has problems' message in the PR page on Github. If the >> CI server runs of all of our code quality checks and finds that everything >> is good we'll get a big 'This PR is ready to merge' message. >> >> Now to the part that overlaps a bit with branching. There are various >> branching strategies that we could adopt for the project. The master / dev >> branch one is a possibility. I'd suggest we try commit code strictly in >> PRs rather than pushing to git. This would be the equivalent of feature >> branching from your link. The reason I'd suggest that approach is that >> from what I've seen it'll be dead simple to get working with Github and >> Travis, and it gives us the same goal of having a stable master branch. >> >> If you'd like we can walk through setting this up together on a forked >> version of our Github repo. We could do a quick example of how code would >> be pushed and merged. I should be available for a google hangout some time >> this week if that works for you? >> >> -Kellen >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> CI = continuous integration :) >>> >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. >>> Chief Architect >>> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) >>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA >>> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 >>> Email: [email protected] >>> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> Director, Information Retrieval and Data Science Group (IRDS) >>> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department >>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA >>> WWW: http://irds.usc.edu/ >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/11/16, 4:50 PM, "Matt Post" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> This sounds fine to me. What does CI stand for? >>>> >>>> Another thing we should do, which might be complementary to this, is just >>> be more formal about our process. I had been using this method for a while: >>>> >>>> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ >>>> >>>> Sort of informally, but that could be a good approach (I think someone >>> suggested it a while ago). In short: >>>> >>>> - "master" is always stable and records official releases >>>> - development takes place on "develop" >>>> - if you need to make an important fix, you branch off master, fix it, >>> then merge that into both "master" (as a point release) and "develop" >>>> >>>> I was using "release" for releases and "master" for develop, but we could >>> adopt anything. >>>> >>>> Kellen, how does this fit with CI? It seems like we could set it up to do >>> testing on "master" and "develop" branches --- the first as a sanity check, >>> and the second as a test for when we could merge into master? >>>> >>>> matt >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2016, at 8:17 AM, kellen sunderland < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> We've made a lot of progress on moving the project over to Apache + >>> Maven. >>>>> I was wondering if now would be a good time to consider re-thinking how >>> we >>>>> merge changes into master. The main goal would be to make sure we have >>> a >>>>> stable master branch that everyone can pull from. >>>>> >>>>> What I'd suggest is that we only merge into master once CI has completed >>>>> testing. This way we can codify style rules, best practices, and make >>> sure >>>>> builds succeed and tests pass. We can develop new features create PRs >>> as >>>>> normal, and then get quick feedback if those PRs are mergable. I'd also >>>>> suggest we dis-allow manual pushing to the master branch. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure how much effort this would be with the existing CI server, >>> but >>>>> I could investigate this if someone could grant me admin permissions. >>> If >>>>> it's a Jenkins server I'm sure it's possible. >>>>> >>>>> Another option is to use Travis CI. I have taken a quick look at >>> Travis CI >>>>> and it seems like a quite polished solution. It's free to use for open >>>>> source projects. It supports automatically building + testing PRs. The >>>>> interface is really clean. It has email notifications and group >>>>> administration support. It's got support for multiple (programming) >>>>> languages so we could in theory build kenlm as a build step and run >>> those >>>>> tests. >>>>> >>>>> Here's some more info on what the workflow with Travis-CI and PRs would >>> be >>>>> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/pull-requests >>>>> >>>>> What do you guys think? Is there a strong preference for using Jenkins >>>>> from the Apache community? Would everyone be ok with avoiding direct >>>>> pushes to master? >>>>> >>>>> -Kellen >>>> >>> >
