> On Dec 9, 2019, at 6:15 PM, Jon Siwek <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 3:05 PM Tim Wojtulewicz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 1. Can we build arbitrary branches on Cirrus? > > Yes, it's a bit awkward how you do it, but I guess better than Travis. > In Cirrus, you can manually trigger an arbitrary branch, but like > Travis, the default is to reject branches that are not whitelisted: > > https://github.com/jsiwek/zeek/blob/94c4790610cf279157ecd536df144fadb83835c1/.cirrus.yml#L13-L16 > > But in Cirrus, you also get the option to override the .cirrus.yml > directly in the web interface for manually triggering a branch. So > basically you can copy-paste the .cirrus.yml and remove the "only_if" > lines, no temporary hacks needed to be committed into the branch > itself.
That sounds reasonable enough. It just always bothered me having to do weird tricks with the actual branch to make it build. > >> 2. Why move the Coverity build? Does it not offer a cron-like interface for >> running regular builds? > > Didn't look like Cirrus has cron-like functionality yet, see > https://github.com/cirruslabs/cirrus-ci-docs/issues/39 > > But also the Coverity build doesn't exactly fit the same mold as the > other tasks. If we didn't have any Coverity usage limitations (think > it's 1 build per day?) and it was required to run on every new commit > in `master`, then I'd say it would be ideal to have that ported into > Cirrus, too, but since that's not the case, I don't have much > preference where it runs except doesn't seem efficient to pay to > bypass the 50 minute Travis time limit anymore just for doing the > Coverity build if GitHub Actions has a free 6 hour time limit and also > supports cron workflows. I see your point there. A single GitHub action would be enough to do the single-platform build that we need for Coverity. > >> 3. Can you move the travis-job script up into the ci directory instead of >> leaving it in testing? > > Just to keep things a bit more organized while Travis is still being > used in parallel with Cirrus? Sure, but eventually travis-job can get > removed: rewrote/factored bits of that into the other ci/*.sh scripts > for Cirrus to use. That’s what I was thinking. It seems strange to have it out on an island by itself, even if it’s going to get removed eventually. _______________________________________________ Zeek-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/zeek-dev
