Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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. I found some information about Travis pr/push builds in a
documentation [1]. Perhaps it will be useful for someone.
[1] https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/pull-requests/#how-pull-requests-are-built
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin
чт, 7 мая 2020 г. в 21:49, Maxim Muzafarov :
>
> 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 branch (locally) and build merged changes.
> - check `continuous-integration/travis-ci/push` -- travis will build
> the pr branch only.
>
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 21:43, Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
> >
> > 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 2020 at 10:41, Ivan Pavlukhin wrote:
> > >
> > > 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, 4 мая 2020 г. в 10:38, Ivan Pavlukhin :
> > > >
> > > > 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, Pavel Tupitsyn :
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 validating that and
> > > > > using
> > > > > that for the actual squash commit.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Adopt the following Git commit message rules (partially from
> > > > > https://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/):
> > > > > - Start with IGNITE-
> > > > > - Use imperative mood in the subject line ("Fix foobar crash on
> > > > > start",
> > > > > "Add baz metric")
> > > > > - Capitalize the subject line
> > > > > - Do not end the subject line with a period
> > > > > - Use the body to explain what and why vs. how
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 11:53 AM Maxim Muzafarov
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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 changed prior to merging
> > > > > > the master branch, but it's better to merge the PR with an initial
> > > > > > authored commit message `as is`.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 2 May 2020 at 18:20, Guru Stron
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > 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 20:35, Saikat Maitra
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Maxim,
> > >
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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 branch (locally) and build merged changes.
- check `continuous-integration/travis-ci/push` -- travis will build
the pr branch only.
On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 21:43, Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
>
> 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 2020 at 10:41, Ivan Pavlukhin wrote:
> >
> > 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, 4 мая 2020 г. в 10:38, Ivan Pavlukhin :
> > >
> > > 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, Pavel Tupitsyn :
> > > >
> > > > 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 validating that and using
> > > > that for the actual squash commit.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Adopt the following Git commit message rules (partially from
> > > > https://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/):
> > > > - Start with IGNITE-
> > > > - Use imperative mood in the subject line ("Fix foobar crash on start",
> > > > "Add baz metric")
> > > > - Capitalize the subject line
> > > > - Do not end the subject line with a period
> > > > - Use the body to explain what and why vs. how
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 11:53 AM Maxim Muzafarov
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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 changed prior to merging
> > > > > the master branch, but it's better to merge the PR with an initial
> > > > > authored commit message `as is`.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 2 May 2020 at 18:20, Guru Stron
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > 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 20:35, Saikat Maitra
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > ptupit...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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 2020 at 10:41, Ivan Pavlukhin wrote:
>
> 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, 4 мая 2020 г. в 10:38, Ivan Pavlukhin :
> >
> > 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, Pavel Tupitsyn :
> > >
> > > 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 validating that and using
> > > that for the actual squash commit.
> > >
> > > 2. Adopt the following Git commit message rules (partially from
> > > https://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/):
> > > - Start with IGNITE-
> > > - Use imperative mood in the subject line ("Fix foobar crash on start",
> > > "Add baz metric")
> > > - Capitalize the subject line
> > > - Do not end the subject line with a period
> > > - Use the body to explain what and why vs. how
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 11:53 AM Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 changed prior to merging
> > > > the master branch, but it's better to merge the PR with an initial
> > > > authored commit message `as is`.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 2 May 2020 at 18:20, Guru Stron
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > > > 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 20:35, Saikat Maitra
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > ptupit...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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 else?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:09 PM Maxim Muzafarov
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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, 4 мая 2020 г. в 10:38, Ivan Pavlukhin :
>
> 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, Pavel Tupitsyn :
> >
> > 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 validating that and using
> > that for the actual squash commit.
> >
> > 2. Adopt the following Git commit message rules (partially from
> > https://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/):
> > - Start with IGNITE-
> > - Use imperative mood in the subject line ("Fix foobar crash on start",
> > "Add baz metric")
> > - Capitalize the subject line
> > - Do not end the subject line with a period
> > - Use the body to explain what and why vs. how
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 11:53 AM Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
> >
> > > 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 changed prior to merging
> > > the master branch, but it's better to merge the PR with an initial
> > > authored commit message `as is`.
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2 May 2020 at 18:20, Guru Stron wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > > > 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 20:35, Saikat Maitra
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 <
> > > ptupit...@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 else?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:09 PM Maxim Muzafarov > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/af52e2a3e865c01596d46374e8b294f2740587dbd59d85e132429b6c@%3Cbuilds.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 20:03, Maxim Muzafarov > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> > >
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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, Pavel Tupitsyn :
>
> 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 validating that and using
> that for the actual squash commit.
>
> 2. Adopt the following Git commit message rules (partially from
> https://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/):
> - Start with IGNITE-
> - Use imperative mood in the subject line ("Fix foobar crash on start",
> "Add baz metric")
> - Capitalize the subject line
> - Do not end the subject line with a period
> - Use the body to explain what and why vs. how
>
> Thoughts?
>
> On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 11:53 AM Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
>
> > 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 changed prior to merging
> > the master branch, but it's better to merge the PR with an initial
> > authored commit message `as is`.
> >
> > On Sat, 2 May 2020 at 18:20, Guru Stron wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> > > > 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 20:35, Saikat Maitra
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 <
> > ptupit...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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 else?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:09 PM Maxim Muzafarov > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/af52e2a3e865c01596d46374e8b294f2740587dbd59d85e132429b6c@%3Cbuilds.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 20:03, Maxim Muzafarov > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 19:46, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > ptupit...@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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 validating that and using
that for the actual squash commit.
2. Adopt the following Git commit message rules (partially from
https://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit/):
- Start with IGNITE-
- Use imperative mood in the subject line ("Fix foobar crash on start",
"Add baz metric")
- Capitalize the subject line
- Do not end the subject line with a period
- Use the body to explain what and why vs. how
Thoughts?
On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 11:53 AM Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
> 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 changed prior to merging
> the master branch, but it's better to merge the PR with an initial
> authored commit message `as is`.
>
> On Sat, 2 May 2020 at 18:20, Guru Stron wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> > > 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 20:35, Saikat Maitra
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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 <
> ptupit...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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 else?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:09 PM Maxim Muzafarov >
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/af52e2a3e865c01596d46374e8b294f2740587dbd59d85e132429b6c@%3Cbuilds.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 20:03, Maxim Muzafarov >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 19:46, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> ptupit...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > is still required.
> > > > > > > > My proposal is to change the text somehow to make this clear,
> > > maybe
> > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > link to the contribution guidelines automatically.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. Builds seem to spend a lot of time in the queue.
> > > > > > > > I've created this PR 4 hours ago, still no results: [1]
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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 changed prior to merging the master branch, but it's better to merge the PR with an initial authored commit message `as is`. On Sat, 2 May 2020 at 18:20, Guru Stron wrote: > > 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. > > 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 20:35, Saikat Maitra > > wrote: > > > > > > 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 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 else? > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:09 PM Maxim Muzafarov > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/af52e2a3e865c01596d46374e8b294f2740587dbd59d85e132429b6c@%3Cbuilds.apache.org%3E > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 20:03, Maxim Muzafarov > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 19:46, Pavel Tupitsyn > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > is still required. > > > > > > > My proposal is to change the text somehow to make this clear, > > maybe > > > > > add a > > > > > > > link to the contribution guidelines automatically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Builds seem to spend a lot of time in the queue. > > > > > > > I've created this PR 4 hours ago, still no results: [1] > > > > > > > Any ideas? I use Travis on some other GitHub projects and it > > usually > > > > > runs > > > > > > > in a minute or two. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7698 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:16 PM Maxim Muzafarov < > > mmu...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12916 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 21:00, Maxim Muzafarov < > > mmu...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Petr, > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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. > 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 20:35, Saikat Maitra > wrote: > > > > 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 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 else? > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:09 PM Maxim Muzafarov > wrote: > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/af52e2a3e865c01596d46374e8b294f2740587dbd59d85e132429b6c@%3Cbuilds.apache.org%3E > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 > > > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 20:03, Maxim Muzafarov > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 19:46, Pavel Tupitsyn > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > is still required. > > > > > > My proposal is to change the text somehow to make this clear, > maybe > > > > add a > > > > > > link to the contribution guidelines automatically. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Builds seem to spend a lot of time in the queue. > > > > > > I've created this PR 4 hours ago, still no results: [1] > > > > > > Any ideas? I use Travis on some other GitHub projects and it > usually > > > > runs > > > > > > in a minute or two. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7698 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:16 PM Maxim Muzafarov < > mmu...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12916 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 21:00, Maxim Muzafarov < > mmu...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > mr.wei...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > mmu...@apache.org > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I forgot to mention one more important thing of this > tool. We
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on 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 20:35, Saikat Maitra wrote: > > 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 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 else? > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:09 PM Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > > > > > 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] > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/af52e2a3e865c01596d46374e8b294f2740587dbd59d85e132429b6c@%3Cbuilds.apache.org%3E > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 20:03, Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository > > > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 19:46, Pavel Tupitsyn > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > is still required. > > > > > My proposal is to change the text somehow to make this clear, maybe > > > add a > > > > > link to the contribution guidelines automatically. > > > > > > > > > > 2. Builds seem to spend a lot of time in the queue. > > > > > I've created this PR 4 hours ago, still no results: [1] > > > > > Any ideas? I use Travis on some other GitHub projects and it usually > > > runs > > > > > in a minute or two. > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7698 > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:16 PM Maxim Muzafarov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 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] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12916 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 21:00, Maxim Muzafarov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jdk: > > > > > > > > > - oraclejdk8 > > > > > > > > > - openjdk10 > > > > > > > > > - openjdk11 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 17:17, Maxim Muzafarov < > > > mmu...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Folks, > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> +1 Travis-ci > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> I see no disadvantages of having multiple CI tools due to: > > > > > > > > >> - it's free for open-source and can be
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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 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 else? > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:09 PM Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > > > 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] > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/af52e2a3e865c01596d46374e8b294f2740587dbd59d85e132429b6c@%3Cbuilds.apache.org%3E > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 > > > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 20:03, Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > > > > > > 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] > > > https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 19:46, Pavel Tupitsyn > > wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > is still required. > > > > My proposal is to change the text somehow to make this clear, maybe > > add a > > > > link to the contribution guidelines automatically. > > > > > > > > 2. Builds seem to spend a lot of time in the queue. > > > > I've created this PR 4 hours ago, still no results: [1] > > > > Any ideas? I use Travis on some other GitHub projects and it usually > > runs > > > > in a minute or two. > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7698 > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:16 PM Maxim Muzafarov > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12916 > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 21:00, Maxim Muzafarov > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jdk: > > > > > > > > - oraclejdk8 > > > > > > > > - openjdk10 > > > > > > > > - openjdk11 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 17:17, Maxim Muzafarov < > > mmu...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> 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 checks with this tool > > like a PR > > > > > > > >> title format (e.g. IGNITE-X: Sample) > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> It seems the TC.Bot can also be integrated with GitHub > checks > > via > > > > > REST API [1]. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> I've checked locally the Ignite build procedure with > > travis-ci and > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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 else? On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:09 PM Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > 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] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/af52e2a3e865c01596d46374e8b294f2740587dbd59d85e132429b6c@%3Cbuilds.apache.org%3E > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 20:03, Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > > > > 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] > https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository > > > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 19:46, Pavel Tupitsyn > wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > is still required. > > > My proposal is to change the text somehow to make this clear, maybe > add a > > > link to the contribution guidelines automatically. > > > > > > 2. Builds seem to spend a lot of time in the queue. > > > I've created this PR 4 hours ago, still no results: [1] > > > Any ideas? I use Travis on some other GitHub projects and it usually > runs > > > in a minute or two. > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7698 > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:16 PM Maxim Muzafarov > wrote: > > > > > > > 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] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12916 > > > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 21:00, Maxim Muzafarov > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jdk: > > > > > > > - oraclejdk8 > > > > > > > - openjdk10 > > > > > > > - openjdk11 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 17:17, Maxim Muzafarov < > mmu...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> 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 checks with this tool > like a PR > > > > > > >> title format (e.g. IGNITE-X: Sample) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> It seems the TC.Bot can also be integrated with GitHub checks > via > > > > REST API [1]. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I've checked locally the Ignite build procedure with > travis-ci and > > > > > > >> GitHub checks [2] and looks like everything is working fine. > > > > > > >> Who can configure the similar things on Apache Ignite GitHub > mirror? > > > > > > >> Does anyone have such access rights? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> [1] https://developer.github.com/v3/checks/runs/ > > > > > > >> [2] > > > > > https://github.com/Mmuzaf/ignite/pull/1/checks?check_run_id=584537955 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 10:37, Nikolay Izhikov < > nizhi...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > On another
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/af52e2a3e865c01596d46374e8b294f2740587dbd59d85e132429b6c@%3Cbuilds.apache.org%3E [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 20:03, Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > > 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] > https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 19:46, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > > > > 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 > > is still required. > > My proposal is to change the text somehow to make this clear, maybe add a > > link to the contribution guidelines automatically. > > > > 2. Builds seem to spend a lot of time in the queue. > > I've created this PR 4 hours ago, still no results: [1] > > Any ideas? I use Travis on some other GitHub projects and it usually runs > > in a minute or two. > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7698 > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:16 PM Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > > > > > 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] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12916 > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 21:00, Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > jdk: > > > > > > - oraclejdk8 > > > > > > - openjdk10 > > > > > > - openjdk11 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 17:17, Maxim Muzafarov > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 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 checks with this tool like a PR > > > > > >> title format (e.g. IGNITE-X: Sample) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It seems the TC.Bot can also be integrated with GitHub checks via > > > REST API [1]. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I've checked locally the Ignite build procedure with travis-ci and > > > > > >> GitHub checks [2] and looks like everything is working fine. > > > > > >> Who can configure the similar things on Apache Ignite GitHub > > > > > >> mirror? > > > > > >> Does anyone have such access rights? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> [1] https://developer.github.com/v3/checks/runs/ > > > > > >> [2] > > > https://github.com/Mmuzaf/ignite/pull/1/checks?check_run_id=584537955 > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 10:37, Nikolay Izhikov > > > wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > 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 (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 > > > >
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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] https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/creating-a-pull-request-template-for-your-repository On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 19:46, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > > 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 > is still required. > My proposal is to change the text somehow to make this clear, maybe add a > link to the contribution guidelines automatically. > > 2. Builds seem to spend a lot of time in the queue. > I've created this PR 4 hours ago, still no results: [1] > Any ideas? I use Travis on some other GitHub projects and it usually runs > in a minute or two. > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7698 > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:16 PM Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > > > 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] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12916 > > > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 21:00, Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > jdk: > > > > > - oraclejdk8 > > > > > - openjdk10 > > > > > - openjdk11 > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 17:17, Maxim Muzafarov > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> 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 checks with this tool like a PR > > > > >> title format (e.g. IGNITE-X: Sample) > > > > >> > > > > >> It seems the TC.Bot can also be integrated with GitHub checks via > > REST API [1]. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> I've checked locally the Ignite build procedure with travis-ci and > > > > >> GitHub checks [2] and looks like everything is working fine. > > > > >> Who can configure the similar things on Apache Ignite GitHub mirror? > > > > >> Does anyone have such access rights? > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> [1] https://developer.github.com/v3/checks/runs/ > > > > >> [2] > > https://github.com/Mmuzaf/ignite/pull/1/checks?check_run_id=584537955 > > > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 10:37, Nikolay Izhikov > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > 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 (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 > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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 < > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > > > >> : > > > > > > > > > >> Maxim, > > > > >> > > > > >> Good idea. I'd add a license check as well. > > > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:14 AM Maxim Muzafarov < > > mmu...@apache.org> > > > > > 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
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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 is still required. My proposal is to change the text somehow to make this clear, maybe add a link to the contribution guidelines automatically. 2. Builds seem to spend a lot of time in the queue. I've created this PR 4 hours ago, still no results: [1] Any ideas? I use Travis on some other GitHub projects and it usually runs in a minute or two. [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7698 On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:16 PM Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > 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] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12916 > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 21:00, Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > jdk: > > > > - oraclejdk8 > > > > - openjdk10 > > > > - openjdk11 > > > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 17:17, Maxim Muzafarov > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> 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 checks with this tool like a PR > > > >> title format (e.g. IGNITE-X: Sample) > > > >> > > > >> It seems the TC.Bot can also be integrated with GitHub checks via > REST API [1]. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I've checked locally the Ignite build procedure with travis-ci and > > > >> GitHub checks [2] and looks like everything is working fine. > > > >> Who can configure the similar things on Apache Ignite GitHub mirror? > > > >> Does anyone have such access rights? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> [1] https://developer.github.com/v3/checks/runs/ > > > >> [2] > https://github.com/Mmuzaf/ignite/pull/1/checks?check_run_id=584537955 > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 10:37, Nikolay Izhikov > wrote: > > > >>> > > > 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 (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 > wrote: > > > > > > > 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 < > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > > >> : > > > > > > > >> Maxim, > > > >> > > > >> Good idea. I'd add a license check as well. > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:14 AM Maxim Muzafarov < > mmu...@apache.org> > > > > 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 each pull-request is: > > > >>> - build the source code and check code-style violations; > > > >>> > > > >>> This will give us some advantages. For instance: > > > >>> 1. Each PR even a very simple (not require tests execution) > will be > > > >>> checked by checkstyle and for compile errors. > > > >>> 2. Developers can be get notified earlier if checkstyle has > been > > > >>> violated in their PRs. > > > >>> > > > >>> To achieve this we can do the following: > > > >>> 1. Configure our TeamCity integration with the Ignite GitHub > > > >>> repository and PR build. It
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12916 On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 21:00, Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > > 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? > > > > > 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. > > > > > > jdk: > > > - oraclejdk8 > > > - openjdk10 > > > - openjdk11 > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 17:17, Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > > >> > > >> 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 checks with this tool like a PR > > >> title format (e.g. IGNITE-X: Sample) > > >> > > >> It seems the TC.Bot can also be integrated with GitHub checks via REST > > >> API [1]. > > >> > > >> > > >> I've checked locally the Ignite build procedure with travis-ci and > > >> GitHub checks [2] and looks like everything is working fine. > > >> Who can configure the similar things on Apache Ignite GitHub mirror? > > >> Does anyone have such access rights? > > >> > > >> > > >> [1] https://developer.github.com/v3/checks/runs/ > > >> [2] https://github.com/Mmuzaf/ignite/pull/1/checks?check_run_id=584537955 > > >> > > >> On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 10:37, Nikolay Izhikov > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > 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 (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 > > wrote: > > > > > 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 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 pull-request is: > > >>> - build the source code and check code-style violations; > > >>> > > >>> This will give us some advantages. For instance: > > >>> 1. Each PR even a very simple (not require tests execution) will be > > >>> checked by checkstyle and for compile errors. > > >>> 2. Developers can be get notified earlier if checkstyle has been > > >>> violated in their PRs. > > >>> > > >>> To achieve this we can do the following: > > >>> 1. Configure our TeamCity integration with the Ignite GitHub > > >>> repository and PR build. It seems it is possible [2]. > > >>> 2. Use Travis-ci which is free for open-source projects and also has > > >>> an integration with GitHub checks [1]. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> What do you think? > > >>> What options will be the best for us? > > >>> > > >>> [1] > > >>> > > >> > > > https://blog.travis-ci.com/2018-05-07-announcing-support-for-github-checks-api-on-travis-ci-com > > >>> [2] > > >>> > > >> > > > https://himynameistim.com/2018/01/16/adding-build-statuses-to-pull-requests-with-teamcity-and-github/ > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Best regards, > > >> Andrey V. Mashenkov > > >> > > > > > >>> > >
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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? > > > 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. > > > > jdk: > > - oraclejdk8 > > - openjdk10 > > - openjdk11 > > > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 17:17, Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > >> > >> 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 checks with this tool like a PR > >> title format (e.g. IGNITE-X: Sample) > >> > >> It seems the TC.Bot can also be integrated with GitHub checks via REST API > >> [1]. > >> > >> > >> I've checked locally the Ignite build procedure with travis-ci and > >> GitHub checks [2] and looks like everything is working fine. > >> Who can configure the similar things on Apache Ignite GitHub mirror? > >> Does anyone have such access rights? > >> > >> > >> [1] https://developer.github.com/v3/checks/runs/ > >> [2] https://github.com/Mmuzaf/ignite/pull/1/checks?check_run_id=584537955 > >> > >> On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 10:37, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > >>> > 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 (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 wrote: > > > 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 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 pull-request is: > >>> - build the source code and check code-style violations; > >>> > >>> This will give us some advantages. For instance: > >>> 1. Each PR even a very simple (not require tests execution) will be > >>> checked by checkstyle and for compile errors. > >>> 2. Developers can be get notified earlier if checkstyle has been > >>> violated in their PRs. > >>> > >>> To achieve this we can do the following: > >>> 1. Configure our TeamCity integration with the Ignite GitHub > >>> repository and PR build. It seems it is possible [2]. > >>> 2. Use Travis-ci which is free for open-source projects and also has > >>> an integration with GitHub checks [1]. > >>> > >>> > >>> What do you think? > >>> What options will be the best for us? > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> > >> > > https://blog.travis-ci.com/2018-05-07-announcing-support-for-github-checks-api-on-travis-ci-com > >>> [2] > >>> > >> > > https://himynameistim.com/2018/01/16/adding-build-statuses-to-pull-requests-with-teamcity-and-github/ > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Best regards, > >> Andrey V. Mashenkov > >> > > > >>> >
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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. > > jdk: > - oraclejdk8 > - openjdk10 > - openjdk11 > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 17:17, Maxim Muzafarov wrote: >> >> 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 checks with this tool like a PR >> title format (e.g. IGNITE-X: Sample) >> >> It seems the TC.Bot can also be integrated with GitHub checks via REST API >> [1]. >> >> >> I've checked locally the Ignite build procedure with travis-ci and >> GitHub checks [2] and looks like everything is working fine. >> Who can configure the similar things on Apache Ignite GitHub mirror? >> Does anyone have such access rights? >> >> >> [1] https://developer.github.com/v3/checks/runs/ >> [2] https://github.com/Mmuzaf/ignite/pull/1/checks?check_run_id=584537955 >> >> On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 10:37, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: >>> 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 (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 wrote: > 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 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 pull-request is: >>> - build the source code and check code-style violations; >>> >>> This will give us some advantages. For instance: >>> 1. Each PR even a very simple (not require tests execution) will be >>> checked by checkstyle and for compile errors. >>> 2. Developers can be get notified earlier if checkstyle has been >>> violated in their PRs. >>> >>> To achieve this we can do the following: >>> 1. Configure our TeamCity integration with the Ignite GitHub >>> repository and PR build. It seems it is possible [2]. >>> 2. Use Travis-ci which is free for open-source projects and also has >>> an integration with GitHub checks [1]. >>> >>> >>> What do you think? >>> What options will be the best for us? >>> >>> [1] >>> >> > https://blog.travis-ci.com/2018-05-07-announcing-support-for-github-checks-api-on-travis-ci-com >>> [2] >>> >> > https://himynameistim.com/2018/01/16/adding-build-statuses-to-pull-requests-with-teamcity-and-github/ >>> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Andrey V. Mashenkov >> > >>>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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 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 checks with this tool like a PR > title format (e.g. IGNITE-X: Sample) > > It seems the TC.Bot can also be integrated with GitHub checks via REST API > [1]. > > > I've checked locally the Ignite build procedure with travis-ci and > GitHub checks [2] and looks like everything is working fine. > Who can configure the similar things on Apache Ignite GitHub mirror? > Does anyone have such access rights? > > > [1] https://developer.github.com/v3/checks/runs/ > [2] https://github.com/Mmuzaf/ignite/pull/1/checks?check_run_id=584537955 > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 10:37, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > > > > 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 (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 wrote: > > > > > >> 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 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 pull-request is: > > - build the source code and check code-style violations; > > > > This will give us some advantages. For instance: > > 1. Each PR even a very simple (not require tests execution) will be > > checked by checkstyle and for compile errors. > > 2. Developers can be get notified earlier if checkstyle has been > > violated in their PRs. > > > > To achieve this we can do the following: > > 1. Configure our TeamCity integration with the Ignite GitHub > > repository and PR build. It seems it is possible [2]. > > 2. Use Travis-ci which is free for open-source projects and also has > > an integration with GitHub checks [1]. > > > > > > What do you think? > > What options will be the best for us? > > > > [1] > > > > >>> > > >> https://blog.travis-ci.com/2018-05-07-announcing-support-for-github-checks-api-on-travis-ci-com > > [2] > > > > >>> > > >> https://himynameistim.com/2018/01/16/adding-build-statuses-to-pull-requests-with-teamcity-and-github/ > > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Best regards, > > >>> Andrey V. Mashenkov > > >>> > > >> > >
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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 checks with this tool like a PR title format (e.g. IGNITE-X: Sample) It seems the TC.Bot can also be integrated with GitHub checks via REST API [1]. I've checked locally the Ignite build procedure with travis-ci and GitHub checks [2] and looks like everything is working fine. Who can configure the similar things on Apache Ignite GitHub mirror? Does anyone have such access rights? [1] https://developer.github.com/v3/checks/runs/ [2] https://github.com/Mmuzaf/ignite/pull/1/checks?check_run_id=584537955 On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 10:37, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > > 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 (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 wrote: > > > >> 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 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 pull-request is: > - build the source code and check code-style violations; > > This will give us some advantages. For instance: > 1. Each PR even a very simple (not require tests execution) will be > checked by checkstyle and for compile errors. > 2. Developers can be get notified earlier if checkstyle has been > violated in their PRs. > > To achieve this we can do the following: > 1. Configure our TeamCity integration with the Ignite GitHub > repository and PR build. It seems it is possible [2]. > 2. Use Travis-ci which is free for open-source projects and also has > an integration with GitHub checks [1]. > > > What do you think? > What options will be the best for us? > > [1] > > >>> > >> https://blog.travis-ci.com/2018-05-07-announcing-support-for-github-checks-api-on-travis-ci-com > [2] > > >>> > >> https://himynameistim.com/2018/01/16/adding-build-statuses-to-pull-requests-with-teamcity-and-github/ > > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Best regards, > >>> Andrey V. Mashenkov > >>> > >> >
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
> 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 (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 wrote: > >> 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 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 pull-request is: - build the source code and check code-style violations; This will give us some advantages. For instance: 1. Each PR even a very simple (not require tests execution) will be checked by checkstyle and for compile errors. 2. Developers can be get notified earlier if checkstyle has been violated in their PRs. To achieve this we can do the following: 1. Configure our TeamCity integration with the Ignite GitHub repository and PR build. It seems it is possible [2]. 2. Use Travis-ci which is free for open-source projects and also has an integration with GitHub checks [1]. What do you think? What options will be the best for us? [1] >>> >> https://blog.travis-ci.com/2018-05-07-announcing-support-for-github-checks-api-on-travis-ci-com [2] >>> >> https://himynameistim.com/2018/01/16/adding-build-statuses-to-pull-requests-with-teamcity-and-github/ >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Andrey V. Mashenkov >>> >>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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 wrote: > 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 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 pull-request is: > > > - build the source code and check code-style violations; > > > > > > This will give us some advantages. For instance: > > > 1. Each PR even a very simple (not require tests execution) will be > > > checked by checkstyle and for compile errors. > > > 2. Developers can be get notified earlier if checkstyle has been > > > violated in their PRs. > > > > > > To achieve this we can do the following: > > > 1. Configure our TeamCity integration with the Ignite GitHub > > > repository and PR build. It seems it is possible [2]. > > > 2. Use Travis-ci which is free for open-source projects and also has > > > an integration with GitHub checks [1]. > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > What options will be the best for us? > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > https://blog.travis-ci.com/2018-05-07-announcing-support-for-github-checks-api-on-travis-ci-com > > > [2] > > > > > > https://himynameistim.com/2018/01/16/adding-build-statuses-to-pull-requests-with-teamcity-and-github/ > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > >
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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 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 pull-request is: > > - build the source code and check code-style violations; > > > > This will give us some advantages. For instance: > > 1. Each PR even a very simple (not require tests execution) will be > > checked by checkstyle and for compile errors. > > 2. Developers can be get notified earlier if checkstyle has been > > violated in their PRs. > > > > To achieve this we can do the following: > > 1. Configure our TeamCity integration with the Ignite GitHub > > repository and PR build. It seems it is possible [2]. > > 2. Use Travis-ci which is free for open-source projects and also has > > an integration with GitHub checks [1]. > > > > > > What do you think? > > What options will be the best for us? > > > > [1] > > > https://blog.travis-ci.com/2018-05-07-announcing-support-for-github-checks-api-on-travis-ci-com > > [2] > > > https://himynameistim.com/2018/01/16/adding-build-statuses-to-pull-requests-with-teamcity-and-github/ > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrey V. Mashenkov >
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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 each pull-request is: > - build the source code and check code-style violations; > > This will give us some advantages. For instance: > 1. Each PR even a very simple (not require tests execution) will be > checked by checkstyle and for compile errors. > 2. Developers can be get notified earlier if checkstyle has been > violated in their PRs. > > To achieve this we can do the following: > 1. Configure our TeamCity integration with the Ignite GitHub > repository and PR build. It seems it is possible [2]. > 2. Use Travis-ci which is free for open-source projects and also has > an integration with GitHub checks [1]. > > > What do you think? > What options will be the best for us? > > [1] > https://blog.travis-ci.com/2018-05-07-announcing-support-for-github-checks-api-on-travis-ci-com > [2] > https://himynameistim.com/2018/01/16/adding-build-statuses-to-pull-requests-with-teamcity-and-github/ > -- Best regards, Andrey V. Mashenkov
Re: [DISCUSSION] Pull-request checks on GitHub
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 pull-request is: > - build the source code and check code-style violations; > > This will give us some advantages. For instance: > 1. Each PR even a very simple (not require tests execution) will be > checked by checkstyle and for compile errors. > 2. Developers can be get notified earlier if checkstyle has been > violated in their PRs. > > To achieve this we can do the following: > 1. Configure our TeamCity integration with the Ignite GitHub > repository and PR build. It seems it is possible [2]. > 2. Use Travis-ci which is free for open-source projects and also has > an integration with GitHub checks [1]. > > > What do you think? > What options will be the best for us? > > [1] > https://blog.travis-ci.com/2018-05-07-announcing-support-for-github-checks-api-on-travis-ci-com > [2] > https://himynameistim.com/2018/01/16/adding-build-statuses-to-pull-requests-with-teamcity-and-github/ >
