Maxim,
Thank your for a clarification. Follow-up questions:
1. Do we need both "pr" and "push" builds? Is not it enough to have only "pr"?
2. What do we build regularly on TC? I suppose it works similarly to
Travis "push" mode. Is it worth (and possible) to consider switching
to "pr" mode?
P.S.
Ivan,
This is the default configuration of travis-ci. Nothing was changed by me here.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong. According to my knowledge the option
mentioned by you have the following meaning:
- check `continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr` -- travis will merge
changes to the master
Folks,
I've updated the checklist according to your suggestions [1].
Added.
+ Treat PR title as the final squashed commit message.
+ The description explains what and why vs. how
Removed.
- Commits have the following pattern
[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7765/files
On Mon, 4 May
Pavel,
> I think this thread is a good opportunity to discuss commit message
> guidelines.
We had a thread about it recently [1].
[1]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rde6e8258537704433286a60e1d0142485c25228a46561544d35b9704%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin
пн,
Maxim,
Thanks again for doing great things!
Out of curiosity, could you please shed a light why there are 2 travis
checks for PR [1]? I am about checks named
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr and
continuous-integration/travis-ci/push.
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin
вс, 3 мая 2020 г. в 13:08,
Igniters, Maxim,
I think this thread is a good opportunity to discuss commit message
guidelines.
I suggest the following:
1. Treat PR title + description as the final squashed commit message.
PR author is responsible for writing that properly.
Committer who merges the PR is responsible for
Hello,
I have the following in my mind:
1. This checklist is for discussion and may be changed.
2. Commits can be squashed in the branch prior to asking a review, but
when the review is in progress a good naming may help to understand
the changes.
3. It's true that the commit message can be
Maxim,
I have a small question about "Commits have the following pattern..". Is
it really needed cause AFAIK commits in the PR are squashed. Or am I
missing something?
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 8:33 PM Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
> Folks,
>
>
> I've created the pull request template for GitHub.
>
Folks,
I've created the pull request template for GitHub.
Please, take a look and let me know what you think [1] [2].
[1]
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7765/files#diff-195a635ad245ded9076330e31134bd80
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12937
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at
Hi Maxim,
Thank you for enabling travis ci in ignite repo. It is very helpful to see
PR build results integrated in PR request.
I will enable it in ignite-extensions repo as well.
Regards,
Saikat
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 12:14 PM Pavel Tupitsyn
wrote:
> Maxim, pull request template is a great
Maxim, pull request template is a great idea.
We can put a checklist there along with the links to the guidelines,
something like this:
[ ] Coding Guidelines are followed
[ ] TeamCity build passes
[ ] JIRA ticked is in Patch Available state, review has been requested in
comments
[ ] Something
Pavel,
Sorry for the incomplete message.
2. I mentioned it too. Hopefully, builds > 4 hrs would not be too often.
The reason - there are limited job-workers shared between all the
Apache projects. I found some details here [1] [2].
[1]
Pavel,
1. Agree here. What if we create a default template pull request
description with all the links required by our development process?
[1] It's will be friendly for contributors to have everything they
need in the PR.
2.
[1]
Maxim,
Good news, thank you.
However, I see two issues with this:
1. False sense of a ready-to-merge PR
Now that we have a reassuring green checkmark on the PR, contributors might
think that build passes and all is well.
But this is not true - we only check that the code compiles. TeamCity run
Igniters,
The Travis-ci build configured for running on the Apache Ignite PRs
and the master branch [1] [2].
Build run under:
openjdk8
openjdk11
Example of PR:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7695
[1] https://travis-ci.org/github/apache/ignite
[2]
Petr,
I think it's doable. It has custom `install-jdk` script, so even the
latest JDKs can be used.
[1] https://github.com/sormuras/bach#install-jdksh
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 18:31, Petr Ivanov wrote:
>
> We do not need JDK10 — it is out of support already.
> Instead, how about adding JDK14?
>
We do not need JDK10 — it is out of support already.
Instead, how about adding JDK14?
> On 14 Apr 2020, at 17:30, Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> I forgot to mention one more important thing of this tool. We can
> configure build and checks simultaneously for several JDK versions.
>
>
Folks,
I forgot to mention one more important thing of this tool. We can
configure build and checks simultaneously for several JDK versions.
jdk:
- oraclejdk8
- openjdk10
- openjdk11
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 17:17, Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> +1 Travis-ci
>
> I see no
Folks,
+1 Travis-ci
I see no disadvantages of having multiple CI tools due to:
- it's free for open-source and can be disabled at any time without
any consequences;
- it will free TeamCity from running builds on each PR and TC can
focus on tests execution;
- we can perform more sophisticated
> On another hand, it seems weird to have both TeamCity and Travis
And don’t forget MTCGA bot!
> 14 апр. 2020 г., в 10:23, Pavel Tupitsyn написал(а):
>
> We should have PR checks for sure.
>
> On one hand, I agree with Denis:
> - Travis is very easy to set up in GitHub
> - Config file
We should have PR checks for sure.
On one hand, I agree with Denis:
- Travis is very easy to set up in GitHub
- Config file (travis.yml) is stored in git, which is great
On another hand, it seems weird to have both TeamCity and Travis.
Thoughts?
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 10:16 AM Denis Garus
Hello!
I have seen projects with Travis-ci they look cool.
I think Travis-ci is a good solution.
вт, 14 апр. 2020 г. в 10:00, Andrey Mashenkov :
> Maxim,
>
> Good idea. I'd add a license check as well.
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:14 AM Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> > It's
Maxim,
Good idea. I'd add a license check as well.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:14 AM Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> It's really `must-have` feature for me to enable Apache Ignite
> pull-request status checks on GitHub. Currently we don't have any of
> them. The most obvious check for
It's a good idea and many of mature projects have the same
вт, 14 апр. 2020 г., 2:14 Maxim Muzafarov :
> Igniters,
>
> It's really `must-have` feature for me to enable Apache Ignite
> pull-request status checks on GitHub. Currently we don't have any of
> them. The most obvious check for each
24 matches
Mail list logo
