Hi David, One of the enhancements we can have with this change (it's easier to do with GH actions) is to write back the result of the CI run as a comment on the PR itself. I believe not needing to periodically check CI to see if the run finished would be a great win. By having CI commenting on the PR everyone watching the PR (author and reviewers) will get notified when it's done.
Best, On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 10:50 AM TengYao Chi <kiting...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello David, > > I think this proposal is awesome. Personally, I find the UI of Jenkins not > very friendly for newcomers. > When I first contributed to Kafka and wanted to see the result of my PR > build, it took me some time to understand each part of Jenkins. So, for me, > the modern and user-friendly UI of GitHub Actions is very attractive. And > most important, if we could stay on the same platform and complete most of > the tasks, it would be great. > I think the main concern is the test suite’s execution time, but as you > mentioned, ASF plans to provide compatible machines for GitHub Actions, so > that might not be an issue. > > I would like to upvote this proposal. > Thank you. > > Best Regards, > TengYao > > David Arthur <davidart...@apache.org> 於 2024年8月16日 週五 上午2:18寫道： > > > Hey everyone, > > > > Over the past several months (years, maybe?) I've tinkered around with > > GitHub Actions as a possible alternative to Jenkins for Apache Kafka CI. > I > > think it is time to actually give it an earnest try. > > > > We have already done some work with GH Actions. Namely the Docker build > and > > the "stale PR" workflow. I would like to add a new workflow that will run > > the JUnit tests in a GH Action. > > > > Here is an example PR on my personal fork that is using an Action > > > > https://github.com/mumrah/kafka/pull/5 > > > > For the full test suite, it took 1h41m. A random Jenkins run I found took > > 1h17m. A difference of 24m. This is simply because the Jenkins hardware > is > > beefier than the GH Actions public runners. > > > > ASF has been evaluating the use of larger runners as well as ASF-hosted > > runners on beefier hardware. I think eventually, the compute capacity > will > > be comparable. > > > > There are many benefits to GH Actions compared to Jenkins. To name a few: > > > > * Significantly better UI > > * Wide availability of plugins from the GitHub Actions Marketplace > > * Better/easier integration with Pull Requests > > * Easier to customize workflows based on different GitHub events > > * Ability to write custom actions that utilize the `gh` GitHub CLI > > > > Another nice thing (and the original motivation for my inquiry) is that > GH > > Actions has caching as a built-in concept. This means we can leverage the > > Gradle cache and potentially speed up build times on PRs significantly. > > > > I'd like to run both Jenkins and GH Actions side by side for a few weeks > so > > we can gather data to make an informed determination. > > > > What do folks in the community think about this? > > > > Cheers, > > David A > > > -- [image: Aiven] <https://www.aiven.io> *Josep Prat* Open Source Engineering Director, *Aiven* josep.p...@aiven.io | +491715557497 aiven.io <https://www.aiven.io> | <https://www.facebook.com/aivencloud> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/aiven/> <https://twitter.com/aiven_io> *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa, Hannu Valtonen, Anna Richardson, Kenneth Chen Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B
