Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github

[Rajani Karuturi]

Jenkins though unstable is right at what it does. That is, if its green,
the build works fine, there are no check style errors, there are no new
PMD/Findbugs errors etc.
On the other hand, Travis green/red doesnt say anything at the moment. It
can be red due to a timeout and sometimes its green because it didnt
actually run any tests. showing green without actually testing anything is
dangerous and hence, I +1 disabling it until we can reliably fix it.

@David, Nope they are not related. Jenkins is unstable for reasons we dont
understand and cant see(not related to code but to the jenkins
environment). triggering a "rebuild" there also doesnt work as it builds on
the base branch instead of applying the PR. The only way to get it running
again is force pushing the PR and each run takes more than 3 hrs. sometimes
it requires as many as 4 or 5 force pushes to see it happy and its very
frustrating. Is it possible for some in ASF infra to look at it?

Travis I think is to do with complex configuration we did. But, right now,
no one has the time to look at it and get it fixed. But, this is something
we can fix and is under our control.


~Rajani

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 4:55 AM, David Nalley  wrote:

> 2 hours before this message was sent, there was a message about
> jenkins being unreliable.
>
> So I am starting to think that something other than Travis or Jenkins
> is the problem.
>
> --David
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Daan Hoogland 
> wrote:
> > Guys and dolls,
> >
> > We have been having travis builds for a while now and they seem to
> generate
> > more work then help. There are a lot of time-outs, (false positive) and
> > when a suite passes it is often because all tests where skipped (false
> > negative). In addition, and this may be just me, I've never been able to
> > pinpoint a problem based on travis output.
> >
> > therefore:
> >
> > I move that we completely disable travis runs on PRs to the cloudstack
> > project. This will reduce confusion about whether a PR is good and will
> > reduce the need for willing contributers to force push their branch over
> > and over.
> >
> > --
> > Daan
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github

[Daan Hoogland]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Rajani Karuturi  wrote:
​+1'ed

and further

> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 4:55 AM, David Nalley  wrote:
>
> > 2 hours before this message was sent, there was a message about
> > jenkins being unreliable.
>
​both are not perfect, travis is costing RMs and their minions, and
contributors time!​



> >
> > So I am starting to think that something other than Travis or Jenkins
> > is the problem.
>
​No, Jenkins and Travis are problems! maintenance wise they are costing
effort we are not putting into it.​


>
> > --David
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Daan Hoogland 
> > wrote:
> > > Guys and dolls,
> > >
> > > We have been having travis builds for a while now and they seem to
> > generate
> > > more work then help. There are a lot of time-outs, (false positive) and
> > > when a suite passes it is often because all tests where skipped (false
> > > negative). In addition, and this may be just me, I've never been able
> to
> > > pinpoint a problem based on travis output.
> > >
> > > therefore:
> > >
> > > I move that we completely disable travis runs on PRs to the cloudstack
> > > project. This will reduce confusion about whether a PR is good and will
> > > reduce the need for willing contributers to force push their branch
> over
> > > and over.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daan
> >
>



-- 
Daan

Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github

[Daan Hoogland]

The apache build reports rats, findbugs, pmd, coverage etc.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Miguel Ferreira <
mferre...@schubergphilis.com> wrote:

> It would add speed.
>
> Just for running maven we could move the travis build to their docker
> based infra which is faster than what we use now.
> I’m guess that the apache build does more stuff like packaging RPMs, but
> I’m not sure there.
>
> \ Miguel Ferreira
>mferre...@schubergphilis.com
>
>
>
>
> On 29 Oct 2015, at 11:27, Daan Hoogland > wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Miguel Ferreira <
> mferre...@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
>
> However, I would still find it valuable to have travis run a single
> command:
> mvn clean isntall -P developer,systemvv
>
> That is because, still many people commenting on PRs don’t even do that.
> In addition this would be faster than the Jenkins build, so it would
> provide faster feedback.
>
>
> ​At the risk of turning this into a discuss thread; It sound a reasonable
> request but what would that add to the analysis run at apache?​
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>
>


-- 
Daan

Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github

[Daan Hoogland]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Sebastien Goasguen 
wrote:

>
> > On Oct 29, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Daan Hoogland 
> wrote:
> >
> > Sebastien, it is not urgent but costing us time
>
> so just don;t look at it ?
>
​no-op. it is there telling people that everything worked and if failed we
get questions about it.​

​and ...​



> > and more important costing
> > time of 'innocent' contributors.
>
> What do you mean by that, I am not understanding.
>
​people get questions to force push to make travis happy and we have a
policy to not ignore travis without comments on the reason for doing so.
​


>
> > So ... revert at your will.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Sebastien Goasguen 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Not surprisingly I like Travis, because it outsources the “tests” and
> that
> >> we can fix them by editing .travis.yml, which can be done by someone
> >> without access to the Jenkins servers/slaves.
> >>
> >> At the very least I agree with Miguel which should keep the mvn build,
> and
> >> possible rat etc…
> >>
> >> Personally, I think that before dumping Travis we should look into why
> the
> >> tests time out or are skipped. Its strange and I have not had time to
> check
> >> what’s going on.
> >>
> >> So I understand why you guys are proposing this, at this point I am:
> >>
> >> -1 (but I can revert if you guys feel strongly and feel its urgent).
> >>
> >> I’d like to see 4.6 released and then we can check what’s happening with
> >> Travis.
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Oct 29, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Daan Hoogland 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The apache build reports rats, findbugs, pmd, coverage etc.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Miguel Ferreira <
> >>> mferre...@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> >>>
>  It would add speed.
> 
>  Just for running maven we could move the travis build to their docker
>  based infra which is faster than what we use now.
>  I’m guess that the apache build does more stuff like packaging RPMs,
> but
>  I’m not sure there.
> 
>  \ Miguel Ferreira
>   mferre...@schubergphilis.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  On 29 Oct 2015, at 11:27, Daan Hoogland  >>   daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>  On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Miguel Ferreira <
>  mferre...@schubergphilis.com>
> >> wrote:
> 
>  However, I would still find it valuable to have travis run a single
>  command:
>  mvn clean isntall -P developer,systemvv
> 
>  That is because, still many people commenting on PRs don’t even do
> that.
>  In addition this would be faster than the Jenkins build, so it would
>  provide faster feedback.
> 
> 
>  ​At the risk of turning this into a discuss thread; It sound a
> >> reasonable
>  request but what would that add to the analysis run at apache?​
> 
> 
> 
>  --
>  Daan
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Daan
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daan
>
>


-- 
Daan

Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github

[Miguel Ferreira]

It would add speed.

Just for running maven we could move the travis build to their docker based 
infra which is faster than what we use now.
I’m guess that the apache build does more stuff like packaging RPMs, but I’m 
not sure there.

\ Miguel Ferreira
   mferre...@schubergphilis.com




On 29 Oct 2015, at 11:27, Daan Hoogland 
> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Miguel Ferreira <
mferre...@schubergphilis.com> wrote:

However, I would still find it valuable to have travis run a single
command:
mvn clean isntall -P developer,systemvv

That is because, still many people commenting on PRs don’t even do that.
In addition this would be faster than the Jenkins build, so it would
provide faster feedback.


​At the risk of turning this into a discuss thread; It sound a reasonable
request but what would that add to the analysis run at apache?​



--
Daan

Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github

[Daan Hoogland]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Sebastien Goasguen 
wrote:

> > On Oct 29, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Daan Hoogland 
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Sebastien Goasguen 
> >>> On Oct 29, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Daan Hoogland 
> >>> Sebastien, it is not urgent but costing us time
> >>
> >> so just don;t look at it ?
> >>
> > ​no-op. it is there telling people that everything worked and if failed
> we
> > get questions about it.​
> >
> > ​and …​
>
> There is a difference between abandoning Travis and not looking at the
> results for 4.6 release.
>
> My gut reaction is to try to understand why Travis is behaving strangely
> and fix it, rather than abandon.
>
> By “not look at it”, I am saying don’t base your review + merge on master
> for 4.6 if you have a good case for it.
>
​So we have to consider it browse through the result to find once again it
was a false negative or - positive to make a case for ignoring it.
​

>>> and more important costing
> >>> time of 'innocent' contributors.
> >>
> >> What do you mean by that, I am not understanding.
> >>
> > ​people get questions to force push to make travis happy and we have a
> > policy to not ignore travis without comments on the reason for doing so.
> > ​
>
> The first time I saw Travis was not behaving and saw a comment from
> someone else about it was on my own PR.
>
​I think you did some​. especially all the requests to force push.

>>> So ... revert at your will.

-- 
Daan

Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github

[Daan Hoogland]

Sebastien, it is not urgent but costing us time and more important costing
time of 'innocent' contributors. So ... revert at your will.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Sebastien Goasguen 
wrote:

> Not surprisingly I like Travis, because it outsources the “tests” and that
> we can fix them by editing .travis.yml, which can be done by someone
> without access to the Jenkins servers/slaves.
>
> At the very least I agree with Miguel which should keep the mvn build, and
> possible rat etc…
>
> Personally, I think that before dumping Travis we should look into why the
> tests time out or are skipped. Its strange and I have not had time to check
> what’s going on.
>
> So I understand why you guys are proposing this, at this point I am:
>
> -1 (but I can revert if you guys feel strongly and feel its urgent).
>
> I’d like to see 4.6 released and then we can check what’s happening with
> Travis.
>
>
> > On Oct 29, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Daan Hoogland 
> wrote:
> >
> > The apache build reports rats, findbugs, pmd, coverage etc.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Miguel Ferreira <
> > mferre...@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It would add speed.
> >>
> >> Just for running maven we could move the travis build to their docker
> >> based infra which is faster than what we use now.
> >> I’m guess that the apache build does more stuff like packaging RPMs, but
> >> I’m not sure there.
> >>
> >> \ Miguel Ferreira
> >>   mferre...@schubergphilis.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 29 Oct 2015, at 11:27, Daan Hoogland   >> daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Miguel Ferreira <
> >> mferre...@schubergphilis.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> However, I would still find it valuable to have travis run a single
> >> command:
> >> mvn clean isntall -P developer,systemvv
> >>
> >> That is because, still many people commenting on PRs don’t even do that.
> >> In addition this would be faster than the Jenkins build, so it would
> >> provide faster feedback.
> >>
> >>
> >> ​At the risk of turning this into a discuss thread; It sound a
> reasonable
> >> request but what would that add to the analysis run at apache?​
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daan
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daan
>
>


-- 
Daan

Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github

[Sebastien Goasguen]

Not surprisingly I like Travis, because it outsources the “tests” and that we 
can fix them by editing .travis.yml, which can be done by someone without 
access to the Jenkins servers/slaves.

At the very least I agree with Miguel which should keep the mvn build, and 
possible rat etc…

Personally, I think that before dumping Travis we should look into why the 
tests time out or are skipped. Its strange and I have not had time to check 
what’s going on.

So I understand why you guys are proposing this, at this point I am:

-1 (but I can revert if you guys feel strongly and feel its urgent).

I’d like to see 4.6 released and then we can check what’s happening with Travis.


> On Oct 29, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Daan Hoogland  wrote:
> 
> The apache build reports rats, findbugs, pmd, coverage etc.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Miguel Ferreira <
> mferre...@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> 
>> It would add speed.
>> 
>> Just for running maven we could move the travis build to their docker
>> based infra which is faster than what we use now.
>> I’m guess that the apache build does more stuff like packaging RPMs, but
>> I’m not sure there.
>> 
>> \ Miguel Ferreira
>>   mferre...@schubergphilis.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 29 Oct 2015, at 11:27, Daan Hoogland  daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Miguel Ferreira <
>> mferre...@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
>> 
>> However, I would still find it valuable to have travis run a single
>> command:
>> mvn clean isntall -P developer,systemvv
>> 
>> That is because, still many people commenting on PRs don’t even do that.
>> In addition this would be faster than the Jenkins build, so it would
>> provide faster feedback.
>> 
>> 
>> ​At the risk of turning this into a discuss thread; It sound a reasonable
>> request but what would that add to the analysis run at apache?​
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Daan
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Daan

Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github

[Sebastien Goasguen]

> On Oct 29, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Daan Hoogland  wrote:
> 
> Sebastien, it is not urgent but costing us time

so just don;t look at it ?

> and more important costing
> time of 'innocent' contributors.

What do you mean by that, I am not understanding.

> So ... revert at your will.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Sebastien Goasguen 
> wrote:
> 
>> Not surprisingly I like Travis, because it outsources the “tests” and that
>> we can fix them by editing .travis.yml, which can be done by someone
>> without access to the Jenkins servers/slaves.
>> 
>> At the very least I agree with Miguel which should keep the mvn build, and
>> possible rat etc…
>> 
>> Personally, I think that before dumping Travis we should look into why the
>> tests time out or are skipped. Its strange and I have not had time to check
>> what’s going on.
>> 
>> So I understand why you guys are proposing this, at this point I am:
>> 
>> -1 (but I can revert if you guys feel strongly and feel its urgent).
>> 
>> I’d like to see 4.6 released and then we can check what’s happening with
>> Travis.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 29, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Daan Hoogland 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The apache build reports rats, findbugs, pmd, coverage etc.
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Miguel Ferreira <
>>> mferre...@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
>>> 
 It would add speed.
 
 Just for running maven we could move the travis build to their docker
 based infra which is faster than what we use now.
 I’m guess that the apache build does more stuff like packaging RPMs, but
 I’m not sure there.
 
 \ Miguel Ferreira
  mferre...@schubergphilis.com
 
 
 
 
 On 29 Oct 2015, at 11:27, Daan Hoogland > >>> daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
 
 On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Miguel Ferreira <
 mferre...@schubergphilis.com>
>> wrote:
 
 However, I would still find it valuable to have travis run a single
 command:
 mvn clean isntall -P developer,systemvv
 
 That is because, still many people commenting on PRs don’t even do that.
 In addition this would be faster than the Jenkins build, so it would
 provide faster feedback.
 
 
 ​At the risk of turning this into a discuss thread; It sound a
>> reasonable
 request but what would that add to the analysis run at apache?​
 
 
 
 --
 Daan
 
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Daan
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Daan

Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github

[Sebastien Goasguen]

> On Oct 29, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Daan Hoogland  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Sebastien Goasguen 
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 29, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Daan Hoogland 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Sebastien, it is not urgent but costing us time
>> 
>> so just don;t look at it ?
>> 
> ​no-op. it is there telling people that everything worked and if failed we
> get questions about it.​
> 
> ​and …​

There is a difference between abandoning Travis and not looking at the results 
for 4.6 release.

My gut reaction is to try to understand why Travis is behaving strangely and 
fix it, rather than abandon.

By “not look at it”, I am saying don’t base your review + merge on master for 
4.6 if you have a good case for it.

> 

> 
> 
>>> and more important costing
>>> time of 'innocent' contributors.
>> 
>> What do you mean by that, I am not understanding.
>> 
> ​people get questions to force push to make travis happy and we have a
> policy to not ignore travis without comments on the reason for doing so.
> ​

The first time I saw Travis was not behaving and saw a comment from someone 
else about it was on my own PR.

Maybe I skipped some comments on PR but I did not see anything like “Travis is 
crazy…don’t look at it”.

Basically, if I can use a free service without needed maintenance, I would like 
to use it.

It’s not like we don’t have issues with Jenkins jobs.



> 
> 
>> 
>>> So ... revert at your will.
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Sebastien Goasguen 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Not surprisingly I like Travis, because it outsources the “tests” and
>> that
 we can fix them by editing .travis.yml, which can be done by someone
 without access to the Jenkins servers/slaves.
 
 At the very least I agree with Miguel which should keep the mvn build,
>> and
 possible rat etc…
 
 Personally, I think that before dumping Travis we should look into why
>> the
 tests time out or are skipped. Its strange and I have not had time to
>> check
 what’s going on.
 
 So I understand why you guys are proposing this, at this point I am:
 
 -1 (but I can revert if you guys feel strongly and feel its urgent).
 
 I’d like to see 4.6 released and then we can check what’s happening with
 Travis.
 
 
> On Oct 29, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Daan Hoogland 
 wrote:
> 
> The apache build reports rats, findbugs, pmd, coverage etc.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Miguel Ferreira <
> mferre...@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> 
>> It would add speed.
>> 
>> Just for running maven we could move the travis build to their docker
>> based infra which is faster than what we use now.
>> I’m guess that the apache build does more stuff like packaging RPMs,
>> but
>> I’m not sure there.
>> 
>> \ Miguel Ferreira
>> mferre...@schubergphilis.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 29 Oct 2015, at 11:27, Daan Hoogland  daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Miguel Ferreira <
>> mferre...@schubergphilis.com>
 wrote:
>> 
>> However, I would still find it valuable to have travis run a single
>> command:
>> mvn clean isntall -P developer,systemvv
>> 
>> That is because, still many people commenting on PRs don’t even do
>> that.
>> In addition this would be faster than the Jenkins build, so it would
>> provide faster feedback.
>> 
>> 
>> ​At the risk of turning this into a discuss thread; It sound a
 reasonable
>> request but what would that add to the analysis run at apache?​
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Daan
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> --
> Daan
 
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Daan
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Daan

Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github

[David Nalley]

2 hours before this message was sent, there was a message about
jenkins being unreliable.

So I am starting to think that something other than Travis or Jenkins
is the problem.

--David

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Daan Hoogland  wrote:
> Guys and dolls,
>
> We have been having travis builds for a while now and they seem to generate
> more work then help. There are a lot of time-outs, (false positive) and
> when a suite passes it is often because all tests where skipped (false
> negative). In addition, and this may be just me, I've never been able to
> pinpoint a problem based on travis output.
>
> therefore:
>
> I move that we completely disable travis runs on PRs to the cloudstack
> project. This will reduce confusion about whether a PR is good and will
> reduce the need for willing contributers to force push their branch over
> and over.
>
> --
> Daan

[PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github

[Daan Hoogland]

Guys and dolls,

We have been having travis builds for a while now and they seem to generate
more work then help. There are a lot of time-outs, (false positive) and
when a suite passes it is often because all tests where skipped (false
negative). In addition, and this may be just me, I've never been able to
pinpoint a problem based on travis output.

therefore:

I move that we completely disable travis runs on PRs to the cloudstack
project. This will reduce confusion about whether a PR is good and will
reduce the need for willing contributers to force push their branch over
and over.

-- 
Daan

Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github

[Remi Bergsma]

+1 it doesn’t help like this.


I look at actual test result people post combined with code reviews. Plus an OK 
from Jenkins should be more than enough to judge a PR.

Let’s make Jenkins more reliable, that would help as well.

Regards,
Remi


On 29/10/15 10:33, "Daan Hoogland"  wrote:

>Guys and dolls,
>
>We have been having travis builds for a while now and they seem to generate
>more work then help. There are a lot of time-outs, (false positive) and
>when a suite passes it is often because all tests where skipped (false
>negative). In addition, and this may be just me, I've never been able to
>pinpoint a problem based on travis output.
>
>therefore:
>
>I move that we completely disable travis runs on PRs to the cloudstack
>project. This will reduce confusion about whether a PR is good and will
>reduce the need for willing contributers to force push their branch over
>and over.
>
>-- 
>Daan

Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github

[Miguel Ferreira]

I do agree that at the moment Travis is either creating false sense of security 
when it is green, or a burden for contributors when it is red, because most of 
the time it goes red for no good reason.

However, I would still find it valuable to have travis run a single command:
mvn clean isntall -P developer,systemvv

That is because, still many people commenting on PRs don’t even do that. In 
addition this would be faster than the Jenkins build, so it would provide 
faster feedback.

Cheers,
\ Miguel Ferreira
   mferre...@schubergphilis.com




On 29 Oct 2015, at 10:41, Remi Bergsma 
> wrote:

+1 it doesn’t help like this.


I look at actual test result people post combined with code reviews. Plus an OK 
from Jenkins should be more than enough to judge a PR.

Let’s make Jenkins more reliable, that would help as well.

Regards,
Remi


On 29/10/15 10:33, "Daan Hoogland" 
> wrote:

Guys and dolls,

We have been having travis builds for a while now and they seem to generate
more work then help. There are a lot of time-outs, (false positive) and
when a suite passes it is often because all tests where skipped (false
negative). In addition, and this may be just me, I've never been able to
pinpoint a problem based on travis output.

therefore:

I move that we completely disable travis runs on PRs to the cloudstack
project. This will reduce confusion about whether a PR is good and will
reduce the need for willing contributers to force push their branch over
and over.

--
Daan

Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github

[Daan Hoogland]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Miguel Ferreira <
mferre...@schubergphilis.com> wrote:

> However, I would still find it valuable to have travis run a single
> command:
> mvn clean isntall -P developer,systemvv
>
> That is because, still many people commenting on PRs don’t even do that.
> In addition this would be faster than the Jenkins build, so it would
> provide faster feedback.
>

​At the risk of turning this into a discuss thread; It sound a reasonable
request but what would that add to the analysis run at apache?​



-- 
Daan