Re: [DISCUSS] Build RPM/DEBs in Travis?
You mean Otto thought of this already only 2 years ago? :) Skimming over that Jira thread, I think we're just looking for a pass/fail on the RPM/DEB builds at this point. I can't think of a reason why we'd need to bring Jenkins into it now that we have the ability to run multiple build sub-jobs in parallel. It keeps the validation and build failure wrt Github neat and tidy without any additional infrastructure, afaict. On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:08 AM Otto Fowler wrote: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-885 > > > On May 22, 2019 at 10:43:22, Justin Leet (justinjl...@gmail.com) wrote: > > Yep, that's all I was doing. I'm in favor of adding it to Travis. > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 10:28 AM Michael Miklavcic < > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think Justin was just giving rationale, not suggesting we shouldn't > make > > the improvements. I think at one point we also had some ambiguity about > > whether or how Docker was going to run in Travis, but I believe some > folks > > have found a path through that? I agree with you both - let's get this > > added to Travis. Good suggestion, Nick. +1. > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:53 AM Nick Allen wrote: > > > > > Yes, running up Full Dev is a manual verification that is required. And > > as > > > a manual verification sometimes that will get missed. And in this > > specific > > > case, tt does seem a bit silly that the addition of a parser should > > require > > > the contributor to run up Full Dev. > > > > > > That being said, anything we can do to reduce the amount of manual > > > verification that is required is a good thing. We should be pushing > > > ourselves to an end state where no manual verification is required for > > any > > > Metron PR. I think building the RPMs/DEBs as part of the Travis build > is > > > at least a small step in the right direction. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:34 AM Justin Leet > > wrote: > > > > > > > Theoretically, we didn't need to before there were both RPMs and DEBs > > > since > > > > running dev up (which necessitates building those) is part of the > build > > > > process. Since they've been split apart, I agree we probably should > be > > > > building them, because nobody is going to run both unless they > > > specifically > > > > done something they'd expect to affect both. > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:30 AM Nick Allen > wrote: > > > > > > > > > In light of issues like this > > > https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1419, > > > > > has anyone looked into building our RPMs and DEBs in Travis? This > > is a > > > > > very common and easy mistake to make and our CI builds really > should > > be > > > > > able to catch this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Build RPM/DEBs in Travis?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-885 On May 22, 2019 at 10:43:22, Justin Leet (justinjl...@gmail.com) wrote: Yep, that's all I was doing. I'm in favor of adding it to Travis. On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 10:28 AM Michael Miklavcic < michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think Justin was just giving rationale, not suggesting we shouldn't make > the improvements. I think at one point we also had some ambiguity about > whether or how Docker was going to run in Travis, but I believe some folks > have found a path through that? I agree with you both - let's get this > added to Travis. Good suggestion, Nick. +1. > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:53 AM Nick Allen wrote: > > > Yes, running up Full Dev is a manual verification that is required. And > as > > a manual verification sometimes that will get missed. And in this > specific > > case, tt does seem a bit silly that the addition of a parser should > require > > the contributor to run up Full Dev. > > > > That being said, anything we can do to reduce the amount of manual > > verification that is required is a good thing. We should be pushing > > ourselves to an end state where no manual verification is required for > any > > Metron PR. I think building the RPMs/DEBs as part of the Travis build is > > at least a small step in the right direction. > > > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:34 AM Justin Leet > wrote: > > > > > Theoretically, we didn't need to before there were both RPMs and DEBs > > since > > > running dev up (which necessitates building those) is part of the build > > > process. Since they've been split apart, I agree we probably should be > > > building them, because nobody is going to run both unless they > > specifically > > > done something they'd expect to affect both. > > > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:30 AM Nick Allen wrote: > > > > > > > In light of issues like this > > https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1419, > > > > has anyone looked into building our RPMs and DEBs in Travis? This > is a > > > > very common and easy mistake to make and our CI builds really should > be > > > > able to catch this. > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Build RPM/DEBs in Travis?
Yep, that's all I was doing. I'm in favor of adding it to Travis. On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 10:28 AM Michael Miklavcic < michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think Justin was just giving rationale, not suggesting we shouldn't make > the improvements. I think at one point we also had some ambiguity about > whether or how Docker was going to run in Travis, but I believe some folks > have found a path through that? I agree with you both - let's get this > added to Travis. Good suggestion, Nick. +1. > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:53 AM Nick Allen wrote: > > > Yes, running up Full Dev is a manual verification that is required. And > as > > a manual verification sometimes that will get missed. And in this > specific > > case, tt does seem a bit silly that the addition of a parser should > require > > the contributor to run up Full Dev. > > > > That being said, anything we can do to reduce the amount of manual > > verification that is required is a good thing. We should be pushing > > ourselves to an end state where no manual verification is required for > any > > Metron PR. I think building the RPMs/DEBs as part of the Travis build is > > at least a small step in the right direction. > > > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:34 AM Justin Leet > wrote: > > > > > Theoretically, we didn't need to before there were both RPMs and DEBs > > since > > > running dev up (which necessitates building those) is part of the build > > > process. Since they've been split apart, I agree we probably should be > > > building them, because nobody is going to run both unless they > > specifically > > > done something they'd expect to affect both. > > > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:30 AM Nick Allen wrote: > > > > > > > In light of issues like this > > https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1419, > > > > has anyone looked into building our RPMs and DEBs in Travis? This > is a > > > > very common and easy mistake to make and our CI builds really should > be > > > > able to catch this. > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Build RPM/DEBs in Travis?
I think Justin was just giving rationale, not suggesting we shouldn't make the improvements. I think at one point we also had some ambiguity about whether or how Docker was going to run in Travis, but I believe some folks have found a path through that? I agree with you both - let's get this added to Travis. Good suggestion, Nick. +1. On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:53 AM Nick Allen wrote: > Yes, running up Full Dev is a manual verification that is required. And as > a manual verification sometimes that will get missed. And in this specific > case, tt does seem a bit silly that the addition of a parser should require > the contributor to run up Full Dev. > > That being said, anything we can do to reduce the amount of manual > verification that is required is a good thing. We should be pushing > ourselves to an end state where no manual verification is required for any > Metron PR. I think building the RPMs/DEBs as part of the Travis build is > at least a small step in the right direction. > > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:34 AM Justin Leet wrote: > > > Theoretically, we didn't need to before there were both RPMs and DEBs > since > > running dev up (which necessitates building those) is part of the build > > process. Since they've been split apart, I agree we probably should be > > building them, because nobody is going to run both unless they > specifically > > done something they'd expect to affect both. > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:30 AM Nick Allen wrote: > > > > > In light of issues like this > https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1419, > > > has anyone looked into building our RPMs and DEBs in Travis? This is a > > > very common and easy mistake to make and our CI builds really should be > > > able to catch this. > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Build RPM/DEBs in Travis?
Yes, running up Full Dev is a manual verification that is required. And as a manual verification sometimes that will get missed. And in this specific case, tt does seem a bit silly that the addition of a parser should require the contributor to run up Full Dev. That being said, anything we can do to reduce the amount of manual verification that is required is a good thing. We should be pushing ourselves to an end state where no manual verification is required for any Metron PR. I think building the RPMs/DEBs as part of the Travis build is at least a small step in the right direction. On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:34 AM Justin Leet wrote: > Theoretically, we didn't need to before there were both RPMs and DEBs since > running dev up (which necessitates building those) is part of the build > process. Since they've been split apart, I agree we probably should be > building them, because nobody is going to run both unless they specifically > done something they'd expect to affect both. > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:30 AM Nick Allen wrote: > > > In light of issues like this https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1419, > > has anyone looked into building our RPMs and DEBs in Travis? This is a > > very common and easy mistake to make and our CI builds really should be > > able to catch this. > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Build RPM/DEBs in Travis?
Theoretically, we didn't need to before there were both RPMs and DEBs since running dev up (which necessitates building those) is part of the build process. Since they've been split apart, I agree we probably should be building them, because nobody is going to run both unless they specifically done something they'd expect to affect both. On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:30 AM Nick Allen wrote: > In light of issues like this https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1419, > has anyone looked into building our RPMs and DEBs in Travis? This is a > very common and easy mistake to make and our CI builds really should be > able to catch this. >
[DISCUSS] Build RPM/DEBs in Travis?
In light of issues like this https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1419, has anyone looked into building our RPMs and DEBs in Travis? This is a very common and easy mistake to make and our CI builds really should be able to catch this.
