Chesnay Schepler created FLINK-30717:
Summary: Migrate Travis CI to Github Actions
Key: FLINK-30717
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-30717
Project: Flink
Issue Type
Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai created FLINK-20161:
---
Summary: Consider switching from Travis CI to Github Actions for
flink-statefun's CI workflows
Key: FLINK-20161
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK
first post to the dev blog:
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/2020/03/22/Migrating+Flink%27s+CI+Infrastructure+from+Travis+CI+to+Azure+Pipelines
> > > .
> > >
> > > I'm looking forward to your feedback and questions on the article :)
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Robert
> >
>
14 AM, Robert Metzger wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have just published the first post to the dev blog:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/2020/03/22/Migrating+Flink%27s+CI+Infrastructure+from+Travis+CI+to+Azure+Pipelines
> > .
> >
>
play/FLINK/2020/03/22/Migrating+Flink%27s+CI+Infrastructure+from+Travis+CI+to+Azure+Pipelines
> .
>
> I'm looking forward to your feedback and questions on the article :)
>
> Best,
> Robert
Hi all,
I have just published the first post to the dev blog:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/2020/03/22/Migrating+Flink%27s+CI+Infrastructure+from+Travis+CI+to+Azure+Pipelines
.
I'm looking forward to your feedback and questions on the article :)
Best,
Robert
Pipelines provides a free services, that is even
>> >>> better
>> >>>> than
>> >>>>> what Travis provides for free: 10 parallel builds with 6 hours
>> >>>> timeouts.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
s in the yet-to-be-written
> >>>>> documentation in the wiki.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 11:58 AM Arvid Heise >>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +1 I
sunjincheng created FLINK-15921:
---
Summary: PYTHON exited with EXIT CODE: 143 in travis-ci
Key: FLINK-15921
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-15921
Project: Flink
Issue Type
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 11:58 AM Arvid Heise >>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 I had good experiences with Azure pipelines in the past.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 11:35 AM Aljoscha Krettek <
>&g
t; > >> > +1
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks for the effort! The tooling seems to be quite a bit
> nicer
> > > and I
> > > >> > like that we can grow by adding more machines.
> > > >>
>> >
> > >> > Best,
> > >> > Aljoscha
> > >> >
> > >> > > On 5. Dec 2019, at 03:18, Jark Wu wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > +1 for Azure pipeline because it promises better pe
Dezhi Cai created FLINK-15088:
-
Summary: "misc" build fail on travis-ci
Key: FLINK-15088
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-15088
Project: Flink
Issue
rmance.
> >> > >
> >> > > However, I have 2 concerns:
> >> > >
> >> > > 1) Travis provides personal free service for testing personal
> >> branches.
> >> > > Usually, contributors use this featur
e for testing personal
>> branches.
>> > > Usually, contributors use this feature to test PoC or run CRON jobs
>> for
>> > > pull requests.
>> > >Using local machine will cost a lot of time. Does AZP provides the
>> > sa
line because it promises better performance.
>> > >
>> > > However, I have 2 concerns:
>> > >
>> > > 1) Travis provides personal free service for testing personal
>> branches.
>> > > Usually, contributors use this feature
t; > >
> > > However, I have 2 concerns:
> > >
> > > 1) Travis provides personal free service for testing personal branches.
> > > Usually, contributors use this feature to test PoC or run CRON jobs for
> > > pull requests.
> > >Using loc
tors use this feature to test PoC or run CRON jobs for
> > pull requests.
> >Using local machine will cost a lot of time. Does AZP provides the
> same
> > free service?
> > 2) Currently, we deployed a webhook [1] to receive Travis CI build
> > notifications [2] and
we deployed a webhook [1] to receive Travis CI build
> notifications [2] and send to bui...@flink.apache.org mailing list.
>We need to figure out a way how to send Azure build results to the
> mailing list. And this [3] might be the way to go.
>
> builds@f.a.o mailing list
>
. Does AZP provides the same
free service?
2) Currently, we deployed a webhook [1] to receive Travis CI build
notifications [2] and send to bui...@flink.apache.org mailing list.
We need to figure out a way how to send Azure build results to the
mailing list. And this [3] might be the way to go
+1
Till Rohrmann 于2019年12月4日周三 下午10:43写道：
> +1 for moving to Azure pipelines as it promises better scalability and
> tooling. Looking forward to having faster builds and hence shorter feedback
> cycles :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 1:24 PM Chesnay Schepler
> wrote:
>
> >
+1 for moving to Azure pipelines as it promises better scalability and
tooling. Looking forward to having faster builds and hence shorter feedback
cycles :-)
Cheers,
Till
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 1:24 PM Chesnay Schepler wrote:
> @robert Can you expand how the azure setup interacts with CiBot?
@robert Can you expand how the azure setup interacts with CiBot? Do we
have to continue mirroring builds into flink-ci? How will the cronjob
configuration work? We should have a general idea on how to implement
this before proceeding.
Additionally, moving /all /jobs into flink-ci requires
From what I've seen so far Azure will provide us a better experience,
so I'd say +1 for the transition as a whole.
I'd delay merge at least until the feature branch is cut.
Given the parental leave it may even make sense to only start merging in
January afterwards, to reduce the total time
Thanks Robert for driving this. There is another big pain point of current
travis,
which is its cache mechanism will fail from time to time. Almost around 50%
of
the build fails are caused by cache problem. I opened this issue to travis
but
got no response yet. So big +1 from my side.
Just one
Thanks Robert for the updates! And thanks a lot for all the efforts to
investigate, experiment and tune Azure Pipelines for Flink building.
Big +1 for it.
It would be great that the community building can be extended with custom
machines so that the tests would not be queued for long with daily
Hi all,
as a follow up from our discussion on reducing the build time [1], I would
like to propose migrating our build infrastructure to Azure Pipelines (away
from Travis).
I believe that we have reached the limits of what Travis can provide the
Flink community, and I don't want the build system
ouyangwulin created FLINK-14855:
---
Summary: travis-ci error.
Key: FLINK-14855
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-14855
Project: Flink
Issue Type: Bug
Components
For example, just perform the necessary tests on the modified place.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:58 AM Yaoting Gong
wrote:
> Hi,
>Yesterday I submitted a PR ( Pull Request #7752), just adding a Chinese
> page. Travis CI was found to be used for one and a half hours for testing,
Hi,
Yesterday I submitted a PR ( Pull Request #7752), just adding a Chinese
page. Travis CI was found to be used for one and a half hours for testing,
whether this can be optimized for more targeted testing. such as. Faster
detection speeds up feedback and allows developers to adjust as quickly
meone can help me out with this very first pull request
> - the travis-ci failed during Tests phase :
> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/494787984
>
> The error seems unrelevant to my change though, do I need some trick to fix
> it here?
>
> 10:42:12.053
Hello guys,
Just wondering if someone can help me out with this very first pull request
- the travis-ci failed during Tests phase :
https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/494787984
The error seems unrelevant to my change though, do I need some trick to fix
it here?
10:42:12.053 [ERROR
JIN SUN created FLINK-10938:
---
Summary: Enable Flink on native k8s E2E Tests in Travis CI
Key: FLINK-10938
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10938
Project: Flink
Issue Type: Sub
buptljy created FLINK-10128:
---
Summary: Timeout on transfering jars on travis-ci
Key: FLINK-10128
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10128
Project: Flink
Issue Type: Bug
vinoyang created FLINK-9992:
---
Summary: FsStorageLocationReferenceTest#testEncodeAndDecode failed
in Travis CI
Key: FLINK-9992
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9992
Project: Flink
Andrey Zagrebin created FLINK-9360:
--
Summary: HA end-to-end nightly test takes more than 15 min in
Travis CI
Key: FLINK-9360
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9360
Project: Flink
I only ran it on a branch limited to 50 minutes; based on my
calculations it saved us 5 minutes,
but i can open a PR to try it out for a full build.
On 22.06.2017 15:37, Robert Metzger wrote:
They talked to Travis to limit the worker allocation per project (I think
they've mentioned this in
mes.
Regards,
Chesnay
On 13.06.2017 16:56, Jark Wu wrote:
Hi devs,
I used to check whether a PR can be merged by using Travis CI on my own
repo branch. But recently I find it doesn't work. Such as this branch
[1]
,
Travis CI failed when reached 50 minutes limit. I find that flink
repo
can
run mor
ms unlikely that we didn't notice a commit that adds 50 minutes to
>>> the build times.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Chesnay
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13.06.2017 16:56, Jark Wu wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi devs,
>>>>
>>>> I
rk Wu wrote:
>
>> Hi devs,
>>
>> I used to check whether a PR can be merged by using Travis CI on my own
>> repo branch. But recently I find it doesn't work. Such as this branch [1]
>> ,
>> Travis CI failed when reached 50 minutes limit. I find that fli
On 13.06.2017 16:56, Jark Wu wrote:
Hi devs,
I used to check whether a PR can be merged by using Travis CI on my own
repo branch. But recently I find it doesn't work. Such as this branch [1] ,
Travis CI failed when reached 50 minutes limit. I find that flink repo can
run more than 1 hr 30 min
be related to some issues they reported a few hours ago (
> > > > https://twitter.com/traviscistatus), but I can't tell.
> > > >
> > > > I really hope that the new env is temporary (although the reduced
> build
> > > > time is indeed nice ;)). Let's monitor this
but I can't tell.
> > >
> > > I really hope that the new env is temporary (although the reduced build
> > > time is indeed nice ;)). Let's monitor this...
> > >
> > > – Ufuk
> > >
> > > On 10 November 2016 at 22:15:51, Greg Hogan (c...@gre
cistatus), but I can't tell.
> > >
> > > I really hope that the new env is temporary (although the reduced build
> > > time is indeed nice ;)). Let's monitor this...
> > >
> > > – Ufuk
> > >
> > > On 10 November 2016 at 22:15:51, Greg H
16 at 22:15:51, Greg Hogan (c...@greghogan.com) wrote:
> > > We're getting the dreaded "The job exceeded the maximum time limit for
> > > jobs, and has been terminated." error for some recent Travis-CI builds.
> > > https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/17461
ted." error for some recent Travis-CI builds.
> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/174615801
>
> The docs state that termination will occur when "A job takes longer than 50
> minutes on travis-ci.org", which applies to Flink as well as user GitHub
> accounts.
>
We're getting the dreaded "The job exceeded the maximum time limit for
jobs, and has been terminated." error for some recent Travis-CI builds.
https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/174615801
The docs state that termination will occur when "A job takes longer than 50
minutes o
6 at 17:41 Sunny T
mailto:tsunny@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I created a pull request for FLINK-4309 last night. Here is the pull
>> > request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2371.
>> >
>> > The jenkins and Travis CI are failing. But the Travis CI passed on my
>> > forked repository.
>> >
>> > Can anyone help me understand what is wrong here?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Sunny
>> >
>
>
>
>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 at 17:41 Sunny T tsunny@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I created a pull request for FLINK-4309 last night. Here is the pull
>> > request: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2371.
>> >
>> > The jenkins and Travis CI are failing. But the Travis CI passed on my
>> > forked repository.
>> >
>> > Can anyone help me understand what is wrong here?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Sunny
>> >
>
>
.com/apache/flink/pull/2371.
>
> The jenkins and Travis CI are failing. But the Travis CI passed on my
> forked repository.
>
> Can anyone help me understand what is wrong here?
>
> Thanks,
> Sunny
>
improving this, but right now we have to
deal with it.
Best regards,
Ivan.
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 at 17:41 Sunny T <tsunny@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I created a pull request for FLINK-4309 last night. Here is the pull
> request: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2371.
>
> T
Hi,
I created a pull request for FLINK-4309 last night. Here is the pull
request: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2371.
The jenkins and Travis CI are failing. But the Travis CI passed on my
forked repository.
Can anyone help me understand what is wrong here?
Thanks,
Sunny
Robert Metzger created FLINK-4151:
-
Summary: Address Travis CI build time: We are exceeding the 2
hours limit
Key: FLINK-4151
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4151
Project: Flink
Wes McKinney created FLINK-3452:
---
Summary: Procuring more Travis CI build capacity for Flink
Key: FLINK-3452
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3452
Project: Flink
Issue Type
Greg Hogan created FLINK-2898:
-
Summary: Invert Travis CI build order
Key: FLINK-2898
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2898
Project: Flink
Issue Type: Improvement
Now there is a blog post on the update:
https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/apache_gains_additional_travis_ci
It seems that Apache now has 30 concurrent builds and is a paying Travis
user/customer.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Robert Metzger rmetz...@apache.org wrote:
I just found out that
I just found out that the execution time limit for the container-based
infra (the one we're using) is 120 minutes ;)
So we have some room left to write more test ;) (But please don't overdo it
)
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Maximilian Michels m...@apache.org wrote:
Very nice. Thanks
Very nice. Thanks Robert!
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Robert Metzger rmetz...@apache.org wrote:
It seems that the issue is fixed. I've just pushed two times to a pull
request and it immediately started building both.
I think the apache user has much more parallel builds available now (we
It seems that the issue is fixed. I've just pushed two times to a pull
request and it immediately started building both.
I think the apache user has much more parallel builds available now (we
don't have any builds queuing up anymore).
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Henry Saputra
Great!
Thanks Robert for sharing the good news :-)
2015-03-26 9:08 GMT+01:00 Robert Metzger rmetz...@apache.org:
Travis replied me with very good news: Somebody from INFRA was asking the
same question around the same time as I did and Travis is working on adding
more build capacity for the
That's nice to hear. They didn't specify any time frame?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Fabian Hueske fhue...@gmail.com wrote:
Great!
Thanks Robert for sharing the good news :-)
2015-03-26 9:08 GMT+01:00 Robert Metzger rmetz...@apache.org:
Travis replied me with very good news: Somebody
Travis replied me with very good news: Somebody from INFRA was asking the
same question around the same time as I did and Travis is working on adding
more build capacity for the apache github organization.
I hope we'll soon have quicker builds again.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Henry Saputra
If we could not get more capacity we could set up ASF Jenkins instead.
It is already used to power CI for many ASF projects like Hadoop so should
not be too shabby.
I have created ticket for Flink to setup ASF Jenkins but have not found
time to work on it.
- Henry
On Tuesday, March 24, 2015,
Hi guys,
the build queue on travis is getting very very long. It seems that it takes
4 days now until commits to master are build. The nightly builds from the
website and the maven snapshots are also delayed by that.
Right now, there are 33 pull request builds scheduled (
Let's see what Travis replies to Robert, but in general I agree with Max.
Travis helped a lot to discover certain race conditions in the last weeks... I
would like to not ditch it completely as Max suggested.
On 24 Mar 2015, at 16:03, Maximilian Michels m...@apache.org wrote:
I would also
65 matches
Mail list logo
