I don’t think we need 3 build systems. I would be open to adding the support for GitHub Actions and then deciding if it is easier to work with than Travis.
Ralph > On Jan 20, 2020, at 3:40 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > > FWIW, over at Apache Commons, some components use both. > > Gary > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 3:42 PM Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'd be on board with trying that out as an alternative to Travis. >> Anything to help test PRs more reliably is great, especially without >> having to overload our Jenkins instance (which is already running CI >> on master and 2.x). >> >> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 14:39, Volkan Yazıcı <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Given GitHub has introduced its own CI, i.e., GitHub Actions, would >>> you consider migrating from Travis CI to that? In its current form, >>> setup-java[1] doesn't support multiple JDKs, but I think it can be >>> worked around. If the rest of the people would agree, I will create a >>> ticket for that and work on it after "replacing JsonLayout with >>> LogstashLayout" task, which I am currently busy right now. >>> >>> Advantages? Technically none, socially a more GitHub-friendly project >> setup. >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/actions/setup-java/ >> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>
