That's presently on the todo list for OSS. Jonathan G
On 8/5/19, 12:22 PM, "ocket 8888" <[email protected]> wrote: Well maybe we don't wind up using it. It's just an experiment at this point. But also: does our current CI system use CiaB? Is it a hard requirement that our actions be a full CI system? Is there a problem with using workflows to trigger 'real' CI when necessary? On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 12:03 PM Gray, Jonathan <[email protected]> wrote: > I wouldn't pollute master and our GH if we don't have a reasonable belief > it _might_ be able to meet our present CI requirements. > > Jonathan G > > > On 8/5/19, 11:42 AM, "Fieck, Brennan" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > maybe do you want to explain for the group which "actions" you are > attempting to enable? > > An action is basically just a docker image that gets run. The one I'm > doing just runs Go tests every day at midnight. > > > can it leverage CDN-in-a-Box? > > possibly, but I honestly doubt it. I could conceivably write an action > that uses docker-compose to bring up CDN-in-a-Box, but since you're limited > to two concurrent actions I'd be surprised if they let me spin up that many > other containers. > ________________________________________ > From: Jeremy Mitchell <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, August 5, 2019 11:34 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] GitHub Actions > > although not ideal, i don't have a real problem with you experimenting > on > master if that's the only place these actions work. maybe do you want > to > explain for the group which "actions" you are attempting to enable? > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 11:08 AM ocket 8888 <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > So it turns out actions will only run on master. I've opened a PR > from the > > dev-actions branch: > https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/pull/3774 so > > does anyone mind my doing that instead? Of course, if it does get > merged I > > can delete my branch - or the merger can. > > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:06 AM Jeremy Mitchell < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:01 AM Robert Butts <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > I'm in favor of being liberal with experimental things. Just > name it > > > > something someone won't mistake for anything stable or > release-ish, > > > > "dev-githubactions" or whatever. And delete it if/when you're no > longer > > > > using it. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 9:22 AM Gray, Jonathan < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Nope, I've done similar things in the past for Jenkins (and > it's on > > my > > > > > todo list again, so I'm curious what you find out). > > > > > > > > > > Jonathan G > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/2/19, 8:54 AM, "ocket 8888" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I wanted to mess around with GitHub actions for Traffic > Control - > > > but > > > > > they're in beta and I haven't been granted access to them > as a > > > GitHub > > > > > user. > > > > > But Apache as an organization has. So basically, I can > mess with > > > them > > > > > on > > > > > the ATC repo, but not on my personal fork. > > > > > > > > > > For that purpose, I was wondering if anyone would have a > problem > > > with > > > > > me > > > > > making a branch where I could tinker with it a bit? I can't > > imagine > > > > > how it > > > > > would affect anything outside of the branch, and at any > rate the > > > > > branch can > > > > > be deleted at any point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (GitHub Actions: https://github.com/features/actions) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
