Misha, thank you for these tips. They were indeed helpful. I was able to get a basic build working more easily than I'd expected on master at this point. I've moved on to migrating the more exotic parts of the travis build now. I suppose the final step will be to backport the workflow to the current maintenance branches and then the migration will be done and we will be able to remove the travis.yaml file.
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:49 AM Misha Brukman <[email protected]> wrote: > Migrating from Travis to GitHub Actions is as simple as removing > .travis.yml and adding a .github/workflows/*.yml files. > > The config specifics differ somewhat (even though they're both structurally > YAML); GitHub Actions lets you import actions which are scripts or tools > with their own GitHub repos, e.g., when you see something like the > following in a GitHub Actions YAML file: > > - uses: actions/checkout@v2 > - uses: actions/cache@v2 > - uses: actions/setup-java@v1 > > Those actually refer to these repos: https://github.com/actions/checkout, > https://github.com/actions/cache, and > https://github.com/actions/setup-java > and the "@vX" is a version identifier. > > JanusGraph migrated from Travis to GitHub Actions a while back; see the > configs here, which could be useful as a reference: > https://github.com/JanusGraph/janusgraph/tree/master/.github/workflows > > The docs for GitHub Actions are here: https://docs.github.com/en/actions > > Hope this helps! > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:12 AM Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Folks offering PRs have pointed out to me that travis is not running for > > them. After checking in with infra it seems that travis has changed up > > their billing model and that's causing trouble. It has been recommended > to > > me that we switch to GitHub Ations. I'm not thrilled about changing CI, > but > > it doesn't appear that things will change any time soon with travis > > arrangements. > > > > Anyone here familiar with GitHub Actions and how to most easily do the > > migration from Travis? Ideally, we'd want the same build setup that we > have > > as Travis as I think it is of the right granularity and gives us the > right > > coverage. > > >
