should remove the command hint now.
>
> From: Robert Metzger
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 15:44
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to Azure Pipelines as the primary CI tool /
> switch off Travis
>
> FYI: I have moved the Flin
: Robert Metzger
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 15:44
To: dev
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to Azure Pipelines as the primary CI tool /
switch off Travis
FYI: I have moved the Flink PR and master builds from my personal Azure
account to a PMC controlled account:
https://dev.azure.com/apache
as the primary CI tool /
switch off Travis
FYI: I have moved the Flink PR and master builds from my personal Azure
account to a PMC controlled account:
https://dev.azure.com/apache-flink/apache-flink/_build
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 8:28 PM Robert Metzger wrote:
> Thanks a lot for bringing up this to
FYI: I have moved the Flink PR and master builds from my personal Azure
account to a PMC controlled account:
https://dev.azure.com/apache-flink/apache-flink/_build
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 8:28 PM Robert Metzger wrote:
> Thanks a lot for bringing up this topic again.
> The reason why I was
Thanks a lot for bringing up this topic again.
The reason why I was hesitant to decommission Travis was that we were still
facing some issues with the Azure infrastructure that I want to resolve, so
that we have a strong test coverage.
In the last few weeks, we had the following issues:
-
I am in favour of decommissioning Travis.
Moreover, I wanted to use this thread to raise another issue with Travis
that I
have discovered recently; many of the builds running in my private Travis
account are timing out in the compilation stage (i.e., compilation takes
more
than 50 minutes). This
Thanks for the clarification Robert.
Since the first step plan is to replace the travis PR runs, I checked all
PR builds from 2020-01-01 (PR#10735-11526) [1], and below is the result:
* Travis FAILURE: 298
* Travis SUCCESS: 649 (68.5%)
* Azure FAILURE: 420
* Azure SUCCESS: 571 (57.6%)
Since the
Thanks for driving this effort Robert. I'd be in favour of disabling Travis
for PRs once AZP is decently stable.
Cheers,
Till
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 8:28 PM Robert Metzger wrote:
> Thank you for your responses.
>
> @Yu Li: In the current master, the log upload always fails, if the e2e job
>
Thank you for your responses.
@Yu Li: In the current master, the log upload always fails, if the e2e job
failed. I just merged a PR that fixes this issue [1]. The problem was not
really the network stability, rather a problem with the interaction of the
jobs in the pipeline (the e2e job did not
The easiest way to disable travis for pushes is to remove all builds
from the .travis.yml with a push/pr condition.
On 25/03/2020 15:03, Robert Metzger wrote:
Thank you for the feedback so far.
Responses to the items Chesnay raised:
- by virtue of maintaining the past 2 releases we will have
Thanks for the efforts Robert!
Checking the pipeline failure report [1] the pass rate is relatively low,
and I'm wondering whether we need more efforts to stabilize it before
replacing travis PR runs.
>From the report, uploading log fails 1/5 of the tests, which indicates the
access from azure
Thank you for the feedback so far.
Responses to the items Chesnay raised:
- by virtue of maintaining the past 2 releases we will have to maintain any
> Travis infrastructure as long as 1.10 is supported, i.e., until 1.12
>
Okay. I wasn't sure about the exact policy there.
> - the azure setup
It was left out since it adds significant additional complexity and the
value is dubious at best for PRs that aren't merged shortly after the
build has finished.
On 25/03/2020 10:28, Dian Fu wrote:
Thanks for the information. I'm sorry that I'm not aware of this before and I
have checked the
Thanks for the information. I'm sorry that I'm not aware of this before and I
have checked the build log of travis and confirmed that this is true.
@Chesnay Are there any specific reasons for this and is it possible to add this
back for Azure Pipelines?
Thanks,
Dian
> 在
@Dian we haven't been rebasing PR's against master for months, ever
since we switched to CiBot.
On 25/03/2020 09:29, Dian Fu wrote:
Hi Robert,
Thanks a lot for your great work!
Overall I'm +1 to switch to Azure as the primary CI tool if it's stable enough
as I think there is no need to run
Hi Robert,
Thanks a lot for your great work!
Overall I'm +1 to switch to Azure as the primary CI tool if it's stable enough
as I think there is no need to run both the travis and Azure for one single PR.
However, there are still some improvements need to do and it would be great if
these
Some thoughts:
- by virtue of maintaining the past 2 releases we will have to maintain
any Travis infrastructure as long as 1.10 is supported, i.e., until 1.12
- the azure setup doesn't appear to be equivalent yet since the java e2e
profile isn't setting the hadoop switch (-Pe2e-hadoop), as a
Hey devs,
I would like to discuss whether it makes sense to fully switch to Azure
Pipelines and phase out our Travis integration.
More information on our Azure integration can be found here:
18 matches
Mail list logo
