You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@airflow.apache.org by Tomasz Urbaszek <to...@polidea.com> on 2019/12/09 21:57:23 UTC

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Hi all,

It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than Travis. One of the main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability to work on self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks Github Actions matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!

Github Actions are still growing but using them have few big advantages:
- they are Github natives
- forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your fork automatically
- variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)

I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo: https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
My impression is quite good. I like information about steps successes at the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step failed). The build log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.

Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions? Any thoughts about using it?

Best,
Tomek

On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com> wrote: 
> FYI: Interesting article about the history behind GitLabCI (featuring
> Kamil, my friend).
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> 
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> >
> > TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly easily replicate the
> > CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it generally works, I can
> > plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main Airflow project for a
> > few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no holidays) and once we see
> > it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we can switch to it.
> >
> > What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to set it up ?
> >
> > Some details
> >
> >    - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI + kubernetes -
> >    without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this should be rather easy
> >    with kind (looking at it next):
> >    - Working example here - you can take a look and compare the UI/how it
> >    is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> >    https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> >    - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still around 35
> >    minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I can play with
> >    memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some reasonable values now),
> >    I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
> >    - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial 24) - that should
> >    let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from each other.
> >    - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have built in retry
> >    mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures like that
> >    - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We should be way below
> >    500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope calculations. Likely
> >    well below
> >    - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko as I
> >    originally planned. GCR would require custom authentication (and
> >    easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well handle multi-staging
> >    builds (cache does not work
> >    https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682). I updated
> >    https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI to
> >    reflect that.
> >    - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we can have
> >    reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's stability (it has problems
> >    sometimes)
> >    - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in any Kubernetes
> >    cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting for docker engine
> >    might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be generally replicable).
> >    - You can take a look at the current source code in
> >    https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> >    - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom builder Docker,
> >    simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's mostly some
> >    cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables + gitlab.ci yaml with
> >    job definitions.
> >
> > J.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds from for PRs :).
> >>
> >> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
> >> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> >> J.
> >>
> >> Principal Software Engineer
> >> Phone: +48660796129
> >>
> >> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> >> napisał:
> >>
> >>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI issue about PRs and
> >>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of Product Management @
> >>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough.
> >>>
> >>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in order to alleviate any
> >>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the whole system on GitLab
> >>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for quite some time (even
> >>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we will be able to tune
> >>> it according to real use cases and compare the experience of both systems.
> >>>
> >>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will make sure that
> >>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes experience (from my company)
> >>> who can take over and make sure there will be no problems. However I am
> >>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I am away. I would also
> >>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join the project and
> >>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see how easy it is and how
> >>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> >>>
> >>> J.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <ka...@polidea.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other problems - building
> >>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch. Currently,
> >>>> building is done using the RTD service. Unfortunately, our project is
> >>>> too large and often the documentation is not built properly.
> >>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> >>>> We should think about another way to build documentation. In the ideal
> >>>> world, building documentation should use the same environment as
> >>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to Travis can further
> >>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> >>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> >>>> https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> >>>>
> >>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project will soon have a
> >>>> website and our documentation will also be available in many
> >>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the design studio
> >>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> >>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you to build a
> >>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks should be combined. I
> >>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that will be a real
> >>>> support for the community on current events, so it will be updated
> >>>> frequently.
> >>>>
> >>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now have problems
> >>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems in the future can
> >>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable infrastructure for
> >>>> the project for a long time.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to share another situation which was not pleasant for me.
> >>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of Travis, I had to wait
> >>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my changes in a week,
> >>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I did it over the
> >>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked on Travis by my
> >>>> jobs.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Hello Everyone,
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I prepared a short docs where I described general architecture of the
> >>>> > solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly - having GitLab CI
> >>>> support
> >>>> > and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon but before I
> >>>> start
> >>>> > doing it, I would like to get some comments and opinions on the
> >>>> proposed
> >>>> > approach. I discussed the basic approach with my friend Kamil who
> >>>> works at
> >>>> > GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we think will be
> >>>> > achievable in fairly short time.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I am happy to discuss details and make changes to the proposal - we
> >>>> can
> >>>> > discuss it here or as comments in the document.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Let's see what people think about it and if we get to some consensus
> >>>> we
> >>>> > might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy consensus as this is
> >>>> > something we should have rather quickly)
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Looking forward to your comments!
> >>>> >
> >>>> > J.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > --
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Jarek Potiuk
> >>>> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> >>>> >
> >>>> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> >>>> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Jarek Potiuk
> >>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> >>>
> >>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> >>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > --
> >
> > Jarek Potiuk
> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> >
> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> 
> Jarek Potiuk
> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> 
> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>.

Yeah. And pairing that with slimmed-down CI integrations
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/7091 that might finally solve our
long-standing CI problems...

J.

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:54 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <to...@polidea.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Just a small update:
> - after Jarek's changes from https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6516
> kubernetes
>   builds started to run (proviously there was an issue with kind)
> - I am testing self-hosted runners
>
> It seems that possible migration is getting closer ;)
>
> Bests,
> Tomek
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:28 PM Philippe Gagnon <ph...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > We have been using Actions on the prestosql project for a little while
> as a
> > Travis replacement and we like it a lot.
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 9:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > :(
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:35 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I started to play with self-hosted runner and... well, encountered
> > known
> > > > error:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.community/t5/GitHub-Actions/Github-action-stuck-at-queue/td-p/38003
> > > >
> > > > It seems that GA is still maturing.
> > > >
> > > > Bests,
> > > > Tomek
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 5:06 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yeah. All at once seems more than reasonable.
> > > > >
> > > > > J.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:50 PM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Agree with Daniel, let's do it all at once.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:49 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I’d rather we do it all at once and not need to maintain two
> > > builds.
> > > > > > > Most/all of our CI/CD is dockerized at this point so there
> > > shouldn’t
> > > > > be a
> > > > > > > huge difference.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:23 AM, Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have to solve a problem with our kubernetes test but for your
> > > > > > information
> > > > > > > I have never experienced a flaky
> > > > > > > or timeouted build on Github Actions. Maybe I am lucky or maybe
> > > > there's
> > > > > > > something different.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If we agree to move to Github Actions, would we like to migrate
> > > > > > > incrementally or fully?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No problem on that side - Tomek is using the same scripts we
> > have
> > > > on
> > > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > (and they generally work - I think the last step is to make
> all
> > > the
> > > > > > > > tests pass. We have still a number of dependencies between
> > tests
> > > > and
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > environmental flakiness so that some tests consistently fail
> in
> > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > Actions where they did not fail in Travis. From latest try by
> > > Tomek
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > looks like we are 1 test to go (plus some cleanup/setup of
> > > project
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > making sure all is stable):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ==== 1 failed, 4030 passed, 119 skipped, 16 warnings in
> > 1207.96s
> > > > > > > (0:20:07)
> > > > > > > > =====
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We discussed with Tomek and Kamil that in order to speed it
> up
> > we
> > > > > might
> > > > > > > > want to run our own workers on the GCP account we have - just
> > to
> > > > test
> > > > > > > > quickly how much we can optimise it and I am inclined to
> agree.
> > > If
> > > > we
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > this way, the transition might be rather fast.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If we want to use auto-scalable GKE cluster as we originally
> > > > planned
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > might take more time to setup (similar setup to what I tried
> > with
> > > > > > > GitLab).
> > > > > > > > There we might need to use docker-in-docker to build the CI
> > image
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > latest as first step of build and then use that built image
> by
> > > all
> > > > > > > > subsequent steps. But we can do it as the next step -
> > optimising
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > experience.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > J.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1 on my end as well.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > @jarek does this affect anything involving breeze? Do
> GitHub
> > > > > actions
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > an easy docker/docker-compose based workflow?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > via Newton Mail [
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2
> > > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:28 AM, Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> > > > ash@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Legal: no I don't think so.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there to run things
> on
> > > our
> > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > "hardware" -
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > needs someone with Admin rights to create, and I don't see
> > the
> > > > > > Settings
> > > > > > > > tab
> > > > > > > > > at all.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -ash
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <
> > xd.deng.r@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it for months
> for
> > my
> > > > > side
> > > > > > > > > > projects, and it’s working very well. I believe most of
> us
> > > are
> > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > tired
> > > > > > > > > > of the waiting time using Travis CI.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The only point I would like to remind is whether we need
> to
> > > > > > > communicate
> > > > > > > > > > with Infra/Legal team for this.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > XD
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <
> > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> +1 for Github actions
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> > > ash@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI
> > > > experience -
> > > > > > > > faster
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >>> good too!
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> -a
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat
> kyzy <
> > > > > > > > > >>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so
> > far
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >>>> recently it
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in
> > > > > > Enterrprise
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Edition,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit
> > disappointed
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> pace and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better
> > choice -
> > > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem
> > to
> > > > get
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which
> makes
> > > it
> > > > > > > possible
> > > > > > > > > >>>> for us
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> to optimise the experience.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed using other CI
> > than
> > > > > > Travis.
> > > > > > > > One
> > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its
> > > ability
> > > > to
> > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > >>>> on
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long
> > weeks
> > > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Actions
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but using them have
> > few
> > > > big
> > > > > > > > > >>>> advantages:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - they are Github natives
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on
> > your
> > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> automatically
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like information
> about
> > > > steps
> > > > > > > > > >>>> successes at
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which
> step
> > > > > failed).
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > >>>> build
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Does any of you have any experience with Github
> > Actions?
> > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > >>>> thoughts
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> about using it?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Tomek
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the history behind
> > > > GitLabCI
> > > > > > > > > >>>> (featuring
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > >>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can
> fairly
> > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > >>>> replicate
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it
> > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > >>>> works, I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the
> main
> > > > > Airflow
> > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> for a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no
> > > > holidays)
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >>>> once we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> see
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > > > > > >>>> switch to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> it.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just
> try
> > > to
> > > > > set
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >>>> up ?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some details
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI
> +
> > > > > > > > > >>>> kubernetes -
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but
> this
> > > > should
> > > > > > > > > >>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> rather easy
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> with kind (looking at it next):
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Working example here - you can take a look and
> > > compare
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> UI/how
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far
> > (still
> > > > > > > > > >>>> around 35
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it
> > further.
> > > I
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > >>>> play
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got
> some
> > > > > > > > > >>>> reasonable
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> values now),
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I can use local SSD disk as Docker
> storage/logs/etc
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for
> initial
> > > > 24) -
> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> let us build 3 builds in parallel independently
> from
> > > > each
> > > > > > > > > >>>> other.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we
> > have
> > > > > built
> > > > > > > > > >>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> retry
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system
> > failures
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We
> > > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>> way
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> below
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope
> > > > > > > > > >>>> calculations.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Likely
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> well below
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and
> > > Kaniko
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> originally planned. GCR would require custom
> > > > > authentication
> > > > > > > > > >>>> (and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet
> well
> > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> multi-staging
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> builds (cache does not work
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682
> > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> updated
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reflect that.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so
> > that
> > > we
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > >>>> have
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's
> > > > stability
> > > > > > > > > >>>> (it has
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> problems
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> sometimes)
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be
> run
> > in
> > > > any
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Kubernetes
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cluster (some optimisations like local volumes
> > > mounting
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >>>> docker
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> engine
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be
> > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> replicable).
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - You can take a look at the current source code
> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - There will be some updates (I will get rid of
> > custom
> > > > > > > > > >>>> builder
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Docker,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests)
> -
> > > it's
> > > > > > > > > >>>> mostly
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables +
> > > > > gitlab.ci
> > > > > > > > > >>>> yaml
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> job definitions.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on automatically running
> > > builds
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > >>>> for PRs
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> :).
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on
> it:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> napisał:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the
> GitLab
> > CI
> > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > >>>> about
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> PRs
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny -
> director
> > > of
> > > > > > > Product
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Management @
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly
> > > enough.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance -
> in
> > > > order
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> alleviate
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up
> the
> > > > whole
> > > > > > > > > >>>> system on
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis
> for
> > > > quite
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > >>>> time
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> (even
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it at any time.
> Then
> > > we
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>> able
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to tune
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases and compare the
> > > > > experience
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >>>> both
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> systems.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I
> > will
> > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > >>>> sure that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes
> > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > > >>>> (from my
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> company)
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure there will be no
> > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> However
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen
> > while
> > > I
> > > > am
> > > > > > > > > >>>> away. I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> would also
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers who would like to
> > > join
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and
> > see
> > > > how
> > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > >>>> it is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and how
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other
> > > > > problems
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> building
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation from the master
> > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Currently,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD service.
> > > > Unfortunately,
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the documentation is not
> > built
> > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another way to build
> > > > > documentation.
> > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ideal
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation should use the
> same
> > > > > > > > > >>>> environment as
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step
> to
> > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> further
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our
> > > project
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > >>>> soon
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation will also be
> > > available
> > > > in
> > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > > design
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> studio
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an environment that will
> allow
> > > you
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>> build a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks
> > > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> combined.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to create a website
> > that
> > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >>>> real
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on current events, so
> > it
> > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>> updated
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If
> we
> > > now
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > >>>> problems
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the significance of these
> > > problems
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> future
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a
> > stable
> > > > > > > > > >>>> infrastructure
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another situation which
> was
> > > not
> > > > > > > > > >>>> pleasant for
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> me.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because
> of
> > > > > Travis,
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > >>>> had to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wait
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would
> send
> > my
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > >>>> in a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> week,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a few hours.
> > Although I
> > > > did
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >>>> over
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is
> > > blocked
> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Travis by
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> my
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where I described
> > general
> > > > > > > > > >>>> architecture
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can deploy fairly
> quickly
> > -
> > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > >>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> CI
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on
> Proof-Of-Concept
> > > soon
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > >>>> before
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> start
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get some comments
> and
> > > > > opinions
> > > > > > > > > >>>> on the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the basic approach with
> my
> > > > > friend
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Kamil
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> who
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> works at
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is
> > what
> > > we
> > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short time.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details and make changes
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> proposal -
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments in the
> document.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think about it and if we
> > get
> > > > to
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consensus
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via
> lasy
> > > > > > consensus
> > > > > > > > > >>>> as
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have rather quickly)
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments!
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> Principal
> > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > > Software
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > > Software
> > > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > Software
> > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > Engineer
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > > > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unique Tech
> > > > > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > > > >
> > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer
> > > >
> > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
> > > >
> > > > Unique Tech
> > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >
> > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Tomasz Urbaszek
> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Software Engineer
>
> M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
>
> Unique Tech
> Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
>


-- 

Jarek Potiuk
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer

M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Tomasz Urbaszek <tu...@apache.org>.

Hi all,

To decrease pressure on Travis and our frustration some CI workloads were
moved to Github Actions:
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/8376

Hopefully there will be no failing builds...

We stil run kube tests and backports build on Travis. Further improvements
are on the way.
Thanks to Jarek Potiuk and Daniel Imberman for help and support!

Best wishes,
Tomek

On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 2:50 PM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Spark is using Github actions too so shouldn't be a problem I think.
>
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 1:22 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <tu...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I thought that there was limit (the docs are little bit unclear
> > regarding this issue).
> >
> > T.
> >
> > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:32, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Oh wow! That's fantastic! Indeed it looks like in the pricing docs. I
> am
> > > sure we discussed before that there is a limit :).
> > >
> > > J.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 12:41 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <turbaszek@apache.org
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have checked and Github Actions have unlimited minutes for open
> > > > repositories.
> > > >
> > > > T
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 12:27, Jarek Potiuk <Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I am working on some last fixes to Kind improvement PR and get it
> > ready
> > > > to
> > > > > merge today - I hope :). Also looking forward to moving out of
> Travis
> > > > > finally.
> > > > >
> > > > > One more thought - we think the best way to approach it is to
> enable
> > > > Github
> > > > > Actions in parallel to Travis and keep it running in parallel to
> make
> > > > sure
> > > > > it is stable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then we can disable Travis but we can keep it available to switch
> it
> > on
> > > > > again as needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the main semi-open point we have with GA is the
> availability
> > of
> > > > > credits for GCP.  The free minutes from Github will not be enough
> for
> > > > sure,
> > > > > Tomek already runs it on the GCP account we got from Google, but we
> > > need
> > > > to
> > > > > secure the credits for the future as well. I will take on that task
> > > with
> > > > > Aizhamal but we need to keep it running for some time to understand
> > > what
> > > > > the usage might be.
> > > > >
> > > > > We can also talk to Github and other providers as well and maybe
> get
> > > some
> > > > > credit donations from other people/companies (maybe we could join
> > > 'Github
> > > > > Sponsors" project and start getting some money through that
> > > > > https://github.com/sponsors)? I think having several sources of
> > > funding
> > > > > for
> > > > > our compute resources might be a good idea. WDYT?
> > > > >
> > > > > J
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, that would be nice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 10:35 Tomasz Urbaszek <
> turbaszek@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > An additional advantage of GA + self-hosted runners is the
> > ability
> > > to
> > > > > > > ssh to machine and see what is going on (for example why tests
> > > > > timeout).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > T.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 4:23 AM Kaxil Naik <
> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Awesome Tomek, great job. Waiting for your PR eagerly :) and
> > > can't
> > > > > wait
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > move out of Travis.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:54 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Just a small update:
> > > > > > > > > - after Jarek's changes from
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6516
> > > > > > > > > kubernetes
> > > > > > > > >   builds started to run (proviously there was an issue with
> > > kind)
> > > > > > > > > - I am testing self-hosted runners
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It seems that possible migration is getting closer ;)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:28 PM Philippe Gagnon <
> > > > > > philgagnon1@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We have been using Actions on the prestosql project for a
> > > > little
> > > > > > > while
> > > > > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > > > Travis replacement and we like it a lot.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 9:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > :(
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:35 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I started to play with self-hosted runner and...
> well,
> > > > > > > encountered
> > > > > > > > > > known
> > > > > > > > > > > > error:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.community/t5/GitHub-Actions/Github-action-stuck-at-queue/td-p/38003
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that GA is still maturing.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 5:06 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah. All at once seems more than reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:50 PM Kaxil Naik <
> > > > > > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree with Daniel, let's do it all at once.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:49 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I’d rather we do it all at once and not need to
> > > > > maintain
> > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > > builds.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most/all of our CI/CD is dockerized at this
> point
> > > so
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > shouldn’t
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > huge difference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:23 AM, Tomasz
> Urbaszek
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have to solve a problem with our kubernetes
> > test
> > > > but
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never experienced a flaky
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or timeouted build on Github Actions. Maybe I
> am
> > > > lucky
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we agree to move to Github Actions, would we
> > > like
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > migrate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incrementally or fully?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No problem on that side - Tomek is using the
> > same
> > > > > > scripts
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (and they generally work - I think the last
> > step
> > > is
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests pass. We have still a number of
> > > dependencies
> > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > environmental flakiness so that some tests
> > > > > consistently
> > > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actions where they did not fail in Travis.
> From
> > > > > latest
> > > > > > > try
> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks like we are 1 test to go (plus some
> > > > > cleanup/setup
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > making sure all is stable):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== 1 failed, 4030 passed, 119 skipped, 16
> > > > warnings
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > 1207.96s
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0:20:07)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =====
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We discussed with Tomek and Kamil that in
> order
> > > to
> > > > > > speed
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to run our own workers on the GCP
> account
> > we
> > > > > have
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quickly how much we can optimise it and I am
> > > > inclined
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > agree.
> > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this way, the transition might be rather
> fast.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we want to use auto-scalable GKE cluster
> as
> > we
> > > > > > > > originally
> > > > > > > > > > > > planned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might take more time to setup (similar setup
> to
> > > > what
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > > tried
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GitLab).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There we might need to use docker-in-docker
> to
> > > > build
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > latest as first step of build and then use
> that
> > > > built
> > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent steps. But we can do it as the
> next
> > > > step -
> > > > > > > > > > optimising
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > experience.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Daniel
> > Imberman
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 on my end as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @jarek does this affect anything involving
> > > > breeze?
> > > > > Do
> > > > > > > > > GitHub
> > > > > > > > > > > > > actions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an easy docker/docker-compose based
> workflow?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > via Newton Mail [
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:28 AM, Ash
> > > > Berlin-Taylor
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > ash@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Legal: no I don't think so.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there
> > to
> > > > run
> > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "hardware" -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > needs someone with Admin rights to create,
> > and
> > > I
> > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Settings
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tab
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at all.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -ash
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <
> > > > > > > > > > xd.deng.r@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using
> it
> > > for
> > > > > > > months
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > side
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > projects, and it’s working very well. I
> > > believe
> > > > > > most
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tired
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the waiting time using Travis CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only point I would like to remind is
> > > > whether
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > communicate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with Infra/Legal team for this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XD
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> +1 for Github actions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash
> > > Berlin-Taylor <
> > > > > > > > > > > ash@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Happy with any thing that gives a more
> > > > seamless
> > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > experience -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > faster
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> good too!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT,
> Aizhamal
> > > > > > Nurmamat
> > > > > > > > > kyzy <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek
> > > Potiuk
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been
> > > less-than
> > > > > > > helpful
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> recently it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> seems that running PRs from forks
> will
> > > only
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enterrprise
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Edition,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> which is less than welcome. I am
> quite
> > a
> > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > disappointed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> pace and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be
> > much
> > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > choice -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> they are closely integrated with
> Github
> > > > repo
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > seem
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> attention/focus from
> Github/Microsoft.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as
> > > well,
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> for us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to optimise the experience.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM
> Tomasz
> > > > > > Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed
> > > using
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Travis.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> main reasons behind considering
> Gitlab
> > > CI
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > > ability
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over
> time
> > > of
> > > > > few
> > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > weeks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Actions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> matured enough to allow using
> > > self-hosted
> > > > > > > runners!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but
> > > using
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> advantages:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - they are Github natives
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions
> > will
> > > > run
> > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> automatically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks,
> > > > greetings,
> > > > > > etc)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our
> > > internal
> > > > > > repo:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like
> > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > steps
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> successes at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to
> > > check
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > failed).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> build
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but
> it
> > > > > works.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Does any of you have any experience
> > with
> > > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > > > Actions?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> thoughts
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> about using it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Tomek
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek
> Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the
> > > > history
> > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > > GitLabCI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (featuring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM
> Jarek
> > > > Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab
> experiences
> > > so
> > > > > far:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown
> > that
> > > we
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> replicate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I
> think i
> > > can
> > > > > > say -
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> works, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test
> > > builds
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Airflow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing
> > > (while
> > > > I
> > > > > am
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > holidays)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> once we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> see
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> it running and get the support for
> > PRs
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > GitLab
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> switch to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call
> a
> > > vote
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > try
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> up ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some details
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I manged to get full working
> > builds
> > > in
> > > > > > > > GitLabCI
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> kubernetes -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> without the kubernetes-specific
> > tests
> > > > yet,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> rather easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> with kind (looking at it next):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Working example here - you can
> > take
> > > a
> > > > > look
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > compare
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> UI/how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is to navigate, comparing to
> Travis
> > > etc:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Per-job it is a bit slower than
> > > Travis
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > (still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> around 35
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> minutes in total), but I plan to
> > > > optimise
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > further.
> > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> play
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> memory/cpu settings of individual
> > > > workers
> > > > > > (Got
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> reasonable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> values now),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I can use local SSD disk as Docker
> > > > > > > > > storage/logs/etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I got an approval for 72vCPU
> quota
> > > (up
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > 24) -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> let us build 3 builds in parallel
> > > > > > > independently
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I managed to get Preemptible
> nodes
> > > > > working
> > > > > > > (we
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > built
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> retry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism in GitLab to work in
> case
> > of
> > > > > > system
> > > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Current spending with > 120
> builds
> > > is
> > > > 40
> > > > > > > USD.
> > > > > > > > We
> > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> below
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 500 USD/month according to my
> > > > > > > > back-of-the-envelope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> calculations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Likely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> well below
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - The current setup does not use
> GCR
> > > as
> > > > > > cache
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > Kaniko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> originally planned. GCR would
> > require
> > > > > custom
> > > > > > > > > > > > > authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko
> > does
> > > > not
> > > > > > yet
> > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> multi-staging
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> builds (cache does not work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> updated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reflect that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - We only use GCR as mirroring of
> > > > > DockerHub
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reliable downloads not depending
> on
> > > > > > > DockerHub's
> > > > > > > > > > > > stability
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (it has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> sometimes)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - All in-all, it's
> GCP-independent.
> > It
> > > > > could
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Kubernetes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cluster (some optimisations like
> > local
> > > > > > volumes
> > > > > > > > > > > mounting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> docker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> engine
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> might have GCP-specific
> assumptions,
> > > but
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> replicable).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - You can take a look at the
> current
> > > > > source
> > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - There will be some updates (I
> will
> > > get
> > > > > rid
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > custom
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> builder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Docker,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> simplify it a bit and implement
> > > > kubernetes
> > > > > > > > tests)
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cleanups + removal of
> > Travis-Specific
> > > > > > > variables
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > gitlab.ci
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> yaml
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> job definitions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM
> > Jarek
> > > > > > Potiuk
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on
> > > > automatically
> > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > builds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> for PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> :).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be
> out
> > > > > advocate
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > it:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129
> > > > > <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12
> użytkownik
> > > > Jarek
> > > > > > > > Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> napisał:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate
> > comment
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > GitLab
> > > > > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of
> Jason
> > > > Lenny
> > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > director
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Product
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Management @
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they
> prioritise
> > > it
> > > > > > > quickly
> > > > > > > > > > > enough.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential
> > > > > > > complexity/Maintenance -
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > order
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> alleviate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think
> about
> > > > > setting
> > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > whole
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> system on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in
> > parallel
> > > to
> > > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> (even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it
> > at
> > > > any
> > > > > > > time.
> > > > > > > > > Then
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to tune
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases
> and
> > > > > compare
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> systems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in
> > two
> > > > > weeks
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> sure that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with
> GitLab
> > +
> > > > > > > Kubernetes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (from my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> company)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure
> > > there
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> However
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is
> > going
> > > to
> > > > > > > happen
> > > > > > > > > > while
> > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> away. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> would also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers
> who
> > > > would
> > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > join
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup
> POC)
> > > to
> > > > > > learn
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to
> > be.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM
> > > Kamil
> > > > > > > Breguła
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow
> us
> > to
> > > > > solve
> > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> building
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation
> from
> > > the
> > > > > > > master
> > > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Currently,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD
> > > > service.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the
> > > documentation
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > built
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another
> way
> > > to
> > > > > > build
> > > > > > > > > > > > > documentation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ideal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation
> > > should
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> environment as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI.
> > > Adding
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development
> > > opportunities.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the
> > fact
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> soon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation
> > will
> > > > also
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are
> > > > taking
> > > > > > > place
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > design
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> studio
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make
> these
> > > > > > websites
> > > > > > > > ;-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an
> environment
> > > that
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> build a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At
> > best,
> > > > > these
> > > > > > > > tasks
> > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> combined.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to
> > > create a
> > > > > > > website
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> real
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on
> > > current
> > > > > > > events,
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> updated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project
> > > will
> > > > > > grow.
> > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the
> > significance
> > > of
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> future
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance
> > to
> > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > stable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> infrastructure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another
> > > > situation
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> pleasant for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10
> PR,
> > > but
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Travis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> had to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wait
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send
> changes.
> > > If I
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > send
> > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> week,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a
> few
> > > > > hours.
> > > > > > > > > > Although I
> > > > > > > > > > > > did
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> over
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that
> > the
> > > > > queue
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > blocked
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Travis by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM
> > > Jarek
> > > > > > > Potiuk
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where
> I
> > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> architecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can
> deploy
> > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > quickly
> > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding
> for
> > > GCP
> > > > > > > > resources.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on
> > > > > > > > > Proof-Of-Concept
> > > > > > > > > > > soon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get
> > some
> > > > > > > comments
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > opinions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the
> basic
> > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > friend
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Kamil
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> works at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI
> maintainer
> > > and
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short
> time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details
> > and
> > > > make
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> proposal -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > document.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think
> > about
> > > it
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consensus
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or
> > > maybe
> > > > go
> > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > > lasy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > consensus
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have
> rather
> > > > > quickly)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your
> > comments!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <
> > https://www.polidea.com/
> > > >
> > > > |
> > > > > > > > > Principal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129
> > > > > > <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <
> > > > > > > https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Polidea <
> https://www.polidea.com/
> > >
> > > |
> > > > > > > > Principal
> > > > > > > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129
> > > > > <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <
> > > > > > https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/
> >
> > |
> > > > > > > Principal
> > > > > > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129
> > > > <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <
> > > > > https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/>
> |
> > > > > > Principal
> > > > > > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129
> > > > <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+
> >
>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>.

Spark is using Github actions too so shouldn't be a problem I think.

On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 1:22 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <tu...@apache.org>
wrote:

> Yes, I thought that there was limit (the docs are little bit unclear
> regarding this issue).
>
> T.
>
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:32, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Oh wow! That's fantastic! Indeed it looks like in the pricing docs. I am
> > sure we discussed before that there is a limit :).
> >
> > J.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 12:41 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <tu...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I have checked and Github Actions have unlimited minutes for open
> > > repositories.
> > >
> > > T
> > >
> > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 12:27, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am working on some last fixes to Kind improvement PR and get it
> ready
> > > to
> > > > merge today - I hope :). Also looking forward to moving out of Travis
> > > > finally.
> > > >
> > > > One more thought - we think the best way to approach it is to enable
> > > Github
> > > > Actions in parallel to Travis and keep it running in parallel to make
> > > sure
> > > > it is stable.
> > > >
> > > > Then we can disable Travis but we can keep it available to switch it
> on
> > > > again as needed.
> > > >
> > > > I think the main semi-open point we have with GA is the availability
> of
> > > > credits for GCP.  The free minutes from Github will not be enough for
> > > sure,
> > > > Tomek already runs it on the GCP account we got from Google, but we
> > need
> > > to
> > > > secure the credits for the future as well. I will take on that task
> > with
> > > > Aizhamal but we need to keep it running for some time to understand
> > what
> > > > the usage might be.
> > > >
> > > > We can also talk to Github and other providers as well and maybe get
> > some
> > > > credit donations from other people/companies (maybe we could join
> > 'Github
> > > > Sponsors" project and start getting some money through that
> > > > https://github.com/sponsors)? I think having several sources of
> > funding
> > > > for
> > > > our compute resources might be a good idea. WDYT?
> > > >
> > > > J
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yeah, that would be nice.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 10:35 Tomasz Urbaszek <tu...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > An additional advantage of GA + self-hosted runners is the
> ability
> > to
> > > > > > ssh to machine and see what is going on (for example why tests
> > > > timeout).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > T.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 4:23 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Awesome Tomek, great job. Waiting for your PR eagerly :) and
> > can't
> > > > wait
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > move out of Travis.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:54 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just a small update:
> > > > > > > > - after Jarek's changes from
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6516
> > > > > > > > kubernetes
> > > > > > > >   builds started to run (proviously there was an issue with
> > kind)
> > > > > > > > - I am testing self-hosted runners
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It seems that possible migration is getting closer ;)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:28 PM Philippe Gagnon <
> > > > > philgagnon1@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We have been using Actions on the prestosql project for a
> > > little
> > > > > > while
> > > > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > > Travis replacement and we like it a lot.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 9:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > :(
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:35 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I started to play with self-hosted runner and... well,
> > > > > > encountered
> > > > > > > > > known
> > > > > > > > > > > error:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.community/t5/GitHub-Actions/Github-action-stuck-at-queue/td-p/38003
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It seems that GA is still maturing.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 5:06 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah. All at once seems more than reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > J.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:50 PM Kaxil Naik <
> > > > > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree with Daniel, let's do it all at once.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:49 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > > > > > > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I’d rather we do it all at once and not need to
> > > > maintain
> > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > builds.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most/all of our CI/CD is dockerized at this point
> > so
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > shouldn’t
> > > > > > > > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > huge difference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:23 AM, Tomasz Urbaszek
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have to solve a problem with our kubernetes
> test
> > > but
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never experienced a flaky
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or timeouted build on Github Actions. Maybe I am
> > > lucky
> > > > or
> > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > something different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we agree to move to Github Actions, would we
> > like
> > > to
> > > > > > > migrate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > incrementally or fully?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No problem on that side - Tomek is using the
> same
> > > > > scripts
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (and they generally work - I think the last
> step
> > is
> > > > to
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests pass. We have still a number of
> > dependencies
> > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > environmental flakiness so that some tests
> > > > consistently
> > > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actions where they did not fail in Travis. From
> > > > latest
> > > > > > try
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks like we are 1 test to go (plus some
> > > > cleanup/setup
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > making sure all is stable):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== 1 failed, 4030 passed, 119 skipped, 16
> > > warnings
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > 1207.96s
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0:20:07)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =====
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We discussed with Tomek and Kamil that in order
> > to
> > > > > speed
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to run our own workers on the GCP account
> we
> > > > have
> > > > > -
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quickly how much we can optimise it and I am
> > > inclined
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > agree.
> > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this way, the transition might be rather fast.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we want to use auto-scalable GKE cluster as
> we
> > > > > > > originally
> > > > > > > > > > > planned
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might take more time to setup (similar setup to
> > > what
> > > > I
> > > > > > > tried
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > GitLab).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There we might need to use docker-in-docker to
> > > build
> > > > > the
> > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > latest as first step of build and then use that
> > > built
> > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent steps. But we can do it as the next
> > > step -
> > > > > > > > > optimising
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > experience.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Daniel
> Imberman
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 on my end as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @jarek does this affect anything involving
> > > breeze?
> > > > Do
> > > > > > > > GitHub
> > > > > > > > > > > > actions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an easy docker/docker-compose based workflow?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > via Newton Mail [
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:28 AM, Ash
> > > Berlin-Taylor
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > ash@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Legal: no I don't think so.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there
> to
> > > run
> > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "hardware" -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > needs someone with Admin rights to create,
> and
> > I
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Settings
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tab
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at all.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -ash
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <
> > > > > > > > > xd.deng.r@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it
> > for
> > > > > > months
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > side
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > projects, and it’s working very well. I
> > believe
> > > > > most
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tired
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the waiting time using Travis CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only point I would like to remind is
> > > whether
> > > > we
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > communicate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with Infra/Legal team for this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XD
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <
> > > > > > > > > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> +1 for Github actions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash
> > Berlin-Taylor <
> > > > > > > > > > ash@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Happy with any thing that gives a more
> > > seamless
> > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > > experience -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > faster
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> good too!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal
> > > > > Nurmamat
> > > > > > > > kyzy <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek
> > Potiuk
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been
> > less-than
> > > > > > helpful
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> recently it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> seems that running PRs from forks will
> > only
> > > > be
> > > > > > run
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Enterrprise
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Edition,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> which is less than welcome. I am quite
> a
> > > bit
> > > > > > > > > disappointed
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> pace and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be
> much
> > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > choice -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> they are closely integrated with Github
> > > repo
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > seem
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as
> > well,
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> for us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to optimise the experience.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz
> > > > > Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed
> > using
> > > > > other
> > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Travis.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> main reasons behind considering Gitlab
> > CI
> > > > was
> > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > ability
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over time
> > of
> > > > few
> > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > weeks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Actions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> matured enough to allow using
> > self-hosted
> > > > > > runners!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but
> > using
> > > > > them
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> advantages:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - they are Github natives
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions
> will
> > > run
> > > > > CI
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> automatically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks,
> > > greetings,
> > > > > etc)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our
> > internal
> > > > > repo:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like
> > > > > information
> > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > steps
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> successes at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to
> > check
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > failed).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> build
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but it
> > > > works.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Does any of you have any experience
> with
> > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > > Actions?
> > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> thoughts
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> about using it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Tomek
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the
> > > history
> > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > GitLabCI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (featuring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek
> > > Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab experiences
> > so
> > > > far:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown
> that
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> replicate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i
> > can
> > > > > say -
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> works, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test
> > builds
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > Airflow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing
> > (while
> > > I
> > > > am
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > holidays)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> once we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> see
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> it running and get the support for
> PRs
> > > > from
> > > > > > > GitLab
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> switch to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call a
> > vote
> > > > or
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > try
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> up ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some details
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I manged to get full working
> builds
> > in
> > > > > > > GitLabCI
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> kubernetes -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> without the kubernetes-specific
> tests
> > > yet,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> rather easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> with kind (looking at it next):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Working example here - you can
> take
> > a
> > > > look
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > compare
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> UI/how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is to navigate, comparing to Travis
> > etc:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Per-job it is a bit slower than
> > Travis
> > > > so
> > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > (still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> around 35
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> minutes in total), but I plan to
> > > optimise
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > > further.
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> play
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> memory/cpu settings of individual
> > > workers
> > > > > (Got
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> reasonable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> values now),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I can use local SSD disk as Docker
> > > > > > > > storage/logs/etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota
> > (up
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > > 24) -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> let us build 3 builds in parallel
> > > > > > independently
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I managed to get Preemptible nodes
> > > > working
> > > > > > (we
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > built
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> retry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism in GitLab to work in case
> of
> > > > > system
> > > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Current spending with > 120 builds
> > is
> > > 40
> > > > > > USD.
> > > > > > > We
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> below
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 500 USD/month according to my
> > > > > > > back-of-the-envelope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> calculations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Likely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> well below
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - The current setup does not use GCR
> > as
> > > > > cache
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > Kaniko
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> originally planned. GCR would
> require
> > > > custom
> > > > > > > > > > > > authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko
> does
> > > not
> > > > > yet
> > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> multi-staging
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> builds (cache does not work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682
> > > > > > > > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> updated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reflect that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - We only use GCR as mirroring of
> > > > DockerHub
> > > > > -
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reliable downloads not depending on
> > > > > > DockerHub's
> > > > > > > > > > > stability
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (it has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> sometimes)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - All in-all, it's GCP-independent.
> It
> > > > could
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Kubernetes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cluster (some optimisations like
> local
> > > > > volumes
> > > > > > > > > > mounting
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> docker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> engine
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> might have GCP-specific assumptions,
> > but
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> replicable).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - You can take a look at the current
> > > > source
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - There will be some updates (I will
> > get
> > > > rid
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > custom
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> builder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Docker,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> simplify it a bit and implement
> > > kubernetes
> > > > > > > tests)
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cleanups + removal of
> Travis-Specific
> > > > > > variables
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > gitlab.ci
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> yaml
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> job definitions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM
> Jarek
> > > > > Potiuk
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on
> > > automatically
> > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > builds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> for PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> :).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be out
> > > > advocate
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > it:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129
> > > > <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik
> > > Jarek
> > > > > > > Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> napisał:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate
> comment
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > GitLab
> > > > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of Jason
> > > Lenny
> > > > -
> > > > > > > > director
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Product
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Management @
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise
> > it
> > > > > > quickly
> > > > > > > > > > enough.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential
> > > > > > complexity/Maintenance -
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > order
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> alleviate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think about
> > > > setting
> > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > whole
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> system on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in
> parallel
> > to
> > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> (even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it
> at
> > > any
> > > > > > time.
> > > > > > > > Then
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to tune
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases and
> > > > compare
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> systems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in
> two
> > > > weeks
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> sure that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with GitLab
> +
> > > > > > Kubernetes
> > > > > > > > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (from my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> company)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure
> > there
> > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> However
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is
> going
> > to
> > > > > > happen
> > > > > > > > > while
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> away. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> would also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers who
> > > would
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > join
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC)
> > to
> > > > > learn
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to
> be.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM
> > Kamil
> > > > > > Breguła
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us
> to
> > > > solve
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> building
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation from
> > the
> > > > > > master
> > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Currently,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD
> > > service.
> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the
> > documentation
> > > > is
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > built
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another way
> > to
> > > > > build
> > > > > > > > > > > > documentation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ideal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation
> > should
> > > > use
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> environment as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI.
> > Adding
> > > > this
> > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development
> > opportunities.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the
> fact
> > > > that
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> soon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation
> will
> > > also
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are
> > > taking
> > > > > > place
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > design
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> studio
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make these
> > > > > websites
> > > > > > > ;-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an environment
> > that
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> build a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At
> best,
> > > > these
> > > > > > > tasks
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> combined.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to
> > create a
> > > > > > website
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> real
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on
> > current
> > > > > > events,
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> updated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project
> > will
> > > > > grow.
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the
> significance
> > of
> > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> future
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance
> to
> > > > > provide
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > stable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> infrastructure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another
> > > situation
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> pleasant for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR,
> > but
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > Travis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> had to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wait
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send changes.
> > If I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > send
> > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> week,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a few
> > > > hours.
> > > > > > > > > Although I
> > > > > > > > > > > did
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> over
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that
> the
> > > > queue
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > blocked
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Travis by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM
> > Jarek
> > > > > > Potiuk
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where I
> > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> architecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can deploy
> > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > quickly
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding for
> > GCP
> > > > > > > resources.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on
> > > > > > > > Proof-Of-Concept
> > > > > > > > > > soon
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get
> some
> > > > > > comments
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > opinions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the basic
> > > > approach
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > friend
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Kamil
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> works at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI maintainer
> > and
> > > > > this
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details
> and
> > > make
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> proposal -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > > document.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think
> about
> > it
> > > > and
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consensus
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or
> > maybe
> > > go
> > > > > via
> > > > > > > > lasy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > consensus
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have rather
> > > > quickly)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your
> comments!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <
> https://www.polidea.com/
> > >
> > > |
> > > > > > > > Principal
> > > > > > > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129
> > > > > <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <
> > > > > > https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/
> >
> > |
> > > > > > > Principal
> > > > > > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129
> > > > <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <
> > > > > https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/>
> |
> > > > > > Principal
> > > > > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129
> > > <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <
> > > > https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> > > > > Principal
> > > > > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129
> > > <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+
>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Tomasz Urbaszek <tu...@apache.org>.

Yes, I thought that there was limit (the docs are little bit unclear
regarding this issue).

T.

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:32, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com> wrote:

> Oh wow! That's fantastic! Indeed it looks like in the pricing docs. I am
> sure we discussed before that there is a limit :).
>
> J.
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 12:41 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <tu...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I have checked and Github Actions have unlimited minutes for open
> > repositories.
> >
> > T
> >
> > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 12:27, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I am working on some last fixes to Kind improvement PR and get it ready
> > to
> > > merge today - I hope :). Also looking forward to moving out of Travis
> > > finally.
> > >
> > > One more thought - we think the best way to approach it is to enable
> > Github
> > > Actions in parallel to Travis and keep it running in parallel to make
> > sure
> > > it is stable.
> > >
> > > Then we can disable Travis but we can keep it available to switch it on
> > > again as needed.
> > >
> > > I think the main semi-open point we have with GA is the availability of
> > > credits for GCP.  The free minutes from Github will not be enough for
> > sure,
> > > Tomek already runs it on the GCP account we got from Google, but we
> need
> > to
> > > secure the credits for the future as well. I will take on that task
> with
> > > Aizhamal but we need to keep it running for some time to understand
> what
> > > the usage might be.
> > >
> > > We can also talk to Github and other providers as well and maybe get
> some
> > > credit donations from other people/companies (maybe we could join
> 'Github
> > > Sponsors" project and start getting some money through that
> > > https://github.com/sponsors)? I think having several sources of
> funding
> > > for
> > > our compute resources might be a good idea. WDYT?
> > >
> > > J
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yeah, that would be nice.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 10:35 Tomasz Urbaszek <tu...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > An additional advantage of GA + self-hosted runners is the ability
> to
> > > > > ssh to machine and see what is going on (for example why tests
> > > timeout).
> > > > >
> > > > > T.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 4:23 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Awesome Tomek, great job. Waiting for your PR eagerly :) and
> can't
> > > wait
> > > > > to
> > > > > > move out of Travis.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:54 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just a small update:
> > > > > > > - after Jarek's changes from
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6516
> > > > > > > kubernetes
> > > > > > >   builds started to run (proviously there was an issue with
> kind)
> > > > > > > - I am testing self-hosted runners
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It seems that possible migration is getting closer ;)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:28 PM Philippe Gagnon <
> > > > philgagnon1@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We have been using Actions on the prestosql project for a
> > little
> > > > > while
> > > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > Travis replacement and we like it a lot.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 9:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > :(
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:35 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I started to play with self-hosted runner and... well,
> > > > > encountered
> > > > > > > > known
> > > > > > > > > > error:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.community/t5/GitHub-Actions/Github-action-stuck-at-queue/td-p/38003
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It seems that GA is still maturing.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 5:06 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yeah. All at once seems more than reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > J.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:50 PM Kaxil Naik <
> > > > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Agree with Daniel, let's do it all at once.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:49 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > > > > > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I’d rather we do it all at once and not need to
> > > maintain
> > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > builds.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Most/all of our CI/CD is dockerized at this point
> so
> > > > there
> > > > > > > > > shouldn’t
> > > > > > > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > huge difference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:23 AM, Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have to solve a problem with our kubernetes test
> > but
> > > > for
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never experienced a flaky
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or timeouted build on Github Actions. Maybe I am
> > lucky
> > > or
> > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > something different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If we agree to move to Github Actions, would we
> like
> > to
> > > > > > migrate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > incrementally or fully?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No problem on that side - Tomek is using the same
> > > > scripts
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (and they generally work - I think the last step
> is
> > > to
> > > > > make
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests pass. We have still a number of
> dependencies
> > > > > between
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > environmental flakiness so that some tests
> > > consistently
> > > > > > fail
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actions where they did not fail in Travis. From
> > > latest
> > > > > try
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > looks like we are 1 test to go (plus some
> > > cleanup/setup
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > making sure all is stable):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== 1 failed, 4030 passed, 119 skipped, 16
> > warnings
> > > in
> > > > > > > > 1207.96s
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (0:20:07)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > =====
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We discussed with Tomek and Kamil that in order
> to
> > > > speed
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to run our own workers on the GCP account we
> > > have
> > > > -
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > quickly how much we can optimise it and I am
> > inclined
> > > > to
> > > > > > > agree.
> > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this way, the transition might be rather fast.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we want to use auto-scalable GKE cluster as we
> > > > > > originally
> > > > > > > > > > planned
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > might take more time to setup (similar setup to
> > what
> > > I
> > > > > > tried
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > GitLab).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > There we might need to use docker-in-docker to
> > build
> > > > the
> > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > latest as first step of build and then use that
> > built
> > > > > image
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent steps. But we can do it as the next
> > step -
> > > > > > > > optimising
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > experience.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Daniel Imberman
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 on my end as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @jarek does this affect anything involving
> > breeze?
> > > Do
> > > > > > > GitHub
> > > > > > > > > > > actions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an easy docker/docker-compose based workflow?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > via Newton Mail [
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:28 AM, Ash
> > Berlin-Taylor
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > ash@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Legal: no I don't think so.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there to
> > run
> > > > > things
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "hardware" -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > needs someone with Admin rights to create, and
> I
> > > > don't
> > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > Settings
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tab
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at all.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -ash
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <
> > > > > > > > xd.deng.r@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it
> for
> > > > > months
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > side
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > projects, and it’s working very well. I
> believe
> > > > most
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tired
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the waiting time using Travis CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only point I would like to remind is
> > whether
> > > we
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > communicate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with Infra/Legal team for this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XD
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <
> > > > > > > > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> +1 for Github actions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash
> Berlin-Taylor <
> > > > > > > > > ash@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Happy with any thing that gives a more
> > seamless
> > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > experience -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > faster
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> good too!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal
> > > > Nurmamat
> > > > > > > kyzy <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek
> Potiuk
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been
> less-than
> > > > > helpful
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> recently it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> seems that running PRs from forks will
> only
> > > be
> > > > > run
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > Enterrprise
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Edition,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> which is less than welcome. I am quite a
> > bit
> > > > > > > > disappointed
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> pace and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much
> > > > better
> > > > > > > > choice -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> they are closely integrated with Github
> > repo
> > > > and
> > > > > > seem
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as
> well,
> > > > which
> > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > possible
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> for us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to optimise the experience.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz
> > > > Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed
> using
> > > > other
> > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > Travis.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > One
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> main reasons behind considering Gitlab
> CI
> > > was
> > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > ability
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over time
> of
> > > few
> > > > > long
> > > > > > > > weeks
> > > > > > > > > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Actions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> matured enough to allow using
> self-hosted
> > > > > runners!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but
> using
> > > > them
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> advantages:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - they are Github natives
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions will
> > run
> > > > CI
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> automatically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks,
> > greetings,
> > > > etc)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our
> internal
> > > > repo:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like
> > > > information
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > steps
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> successes at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to
> check
> > > > which
> > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > failed).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> build
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but it
> > > works.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Does any of you have any experience with
> > > > Github
> > > > > > > > Actions?
> > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> thoughts
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> about using it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Tomek
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the
> > history
> > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > GitLabCI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (featuring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek
> > Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab experiences
> so
> > > far:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that
> we
> > > can
> > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> replicate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i
> can
> > > > say -
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> works, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test
> builds
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > Airflow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing
> (while
> > I
> > > am
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > holidays)
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> once we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> see
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> it running and get the support for PRs
> > > from
> > > > > > GitLab
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> switch to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call a
> vote
> > > or
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > try
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> up ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some details
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I manged to get full working builds
> in
> > > > > > GitLabCI
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> kubernetes -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> without the kubernetes-specific tests
> > yet,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> rather easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> with kind (looking at it next):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Working example here - you can take
> a
> > > look
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > compare
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> UI/how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is to navigate, comparing to Travis
> etc:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Per-job it is a bit slower than
> Travis
> > > so
> > > > > far
> > > > > > > > (still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> around 35
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> minutes in total), but I plan to
> > optimise
> > > it
> > > > > > > > further.
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> play
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> memory/cpu settings of individual
> > workers
> > > > (Got
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> reasonable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> values now),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I can use local SSD disk as Docker
> > > > > > > storage/logs/etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota
> (up
> > > for
> > > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > > 24) -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> let us build 3 builds in parallel
> > > > > independently
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I managed to get Preemptible nodes
> > > working
> > > > > (we
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > built
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> retry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism in GitLab to work in case of
> > > > system
> > > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Current spending with > 120 builds
> is
> > 40
> > > > > USD.
> > > > > > We
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> below
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 500 USD/month according to my
> > > > > > back-of-the-envelope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> calculations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Likely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> well below
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - The current setup does not use GCR
> as
> > > > cache
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > Kaniko
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> originally planned. GCR would require
> > > custom
> > > > > > > > > > > authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does
> > not
> > > > yet
> > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> multi-staging
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> builds (cache does not work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682
> > > > > > > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> updated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reflect that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - We only use GCR as mirroring of
> > > DockerHub
> > > > -
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reliable downloads not depending on
> > > > > DockerHub's
> > > > > > > > > > stability
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (it has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> sometimes)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It
> > > could
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Kubernetes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cluster (some optimisations like local
> > > > volumes
> > > > > > > > > mounting
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> docker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> engine
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> might have GCP-specific assumptions,
> but
> > > > > should
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> replicable).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - You can take a look at the current
> > > source
> > > > > code
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - There will be some updates (I will
> get
> > > rid
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > custom
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> builder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Docker,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> simplify it a bit and implement
> > kubernetes
> > > > > > tests)
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific
> > > > > variables
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > gitlab.ci
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> yaml
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> job definitions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek
> > > > Potiuk
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on
> > automatically
> > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > builds
> > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> for PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> :).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be out
> > > advocate
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > it:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129
> > > <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik
> > Jarek
> > > > > > Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> napisał:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate comment
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > GitLab
> > > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of Jason
> > Lenny
> > > -
> > > > > > > director
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Product
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Management @
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise
> it
> > > > > quickly
> > > > > > > > > enough.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential
> > > > > complexity/Maintenance -
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > order
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> alleviate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think about
> > > setting
> > > > > up
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > whole
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> system on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel
> to
> > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> (even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it at
> > any
> > > > > time.
> > > > > > > Then
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to tune
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases and
> > > compare
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> systems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in two
> > > weeks
> > > > > and
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> sure that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with GitLab +
> > > > > Kubernetes
> > > > > > > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (from my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> company)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure
> there
> > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> However
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is going
> to
> > > > > happen
> > > > > > > > while
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> away. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> would also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers who
> > would
> > > > > like
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > join
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC)
> to
> > > > learn
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM
> Kamil
> > > > > Breguła
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to
> > > solve
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> building
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation from
> the
> > > > > master
> > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Currently,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD
> > service.
> > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately,
> > > > > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the
> documentation
> > > is
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > built
> > > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another way
> to
> > > > build
> > > > > > > > > > > documentation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ideal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation
> should
> > > use
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> environment as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI.
> Adding
> > > this
> > > > > > step
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development
> opportunities.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the fact
> > > that
> > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> soon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation will
> > also
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are
> > taking
> > > > > place
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > design
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> studio
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make these
> > > > websites
> > > > > > ;-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an environment
> that
> > > > will
> > > > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> build a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At best,
> > > these
> > > > > > tasks
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> combined.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to
> create a
> > > > > website
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> real
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on
> current
> > > > > events,
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> updated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project
> will
> > > > grow.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the significance
> of
> > > > these
> > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> future
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to
> > > > provide
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > stable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> infrastructure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another
> > situation
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> pleasant for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR,
> but
> > > > > because
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > Travis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> had to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wait
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send changes.
> If I
> > > > would
> > > > > > > send
> > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> week,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a few
> > > hours.
> > > > > > > > Although I
> > > > > > > > > > did
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> over
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that the
> > > queue
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > blocked
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Travis by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM
> Jarek
> > > > > Potiuk
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where I
> > > > described
> > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> architecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can deploy
> > > fairly
> > > > > > > quickly
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding for
> GCP
> > > > > > resources.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on
> > > > > > > Proof-Of-Concept
> > > > > > > > > soon
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get some
> > > > > comments
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > opinions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the basic
> > > approach
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > friend
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Kamil
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> works at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI maintainer
> and
> > > > this
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details and
> > make
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> proposal -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments in
> > the
> > > > > > > document.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think about
> it
> > > and
> > > > > if
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consensus
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or
> maybe
> > go
> > > > via
> > > > > > > lasy
> > > > > > > > > > > > consensus
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have rather
> > > quickly)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/
> >
> > |
> > > > > > > Principal
> > > > > > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129
> > > > <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <
> > > > > https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/>
> |
> > > > > > Principal
> > > > > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129
> > > <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <
> > > > https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> > > > > Principal
> > > > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129
> > <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <
> > > https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> > > > Principal
> > > > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129
> > <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>.

Oh wow! That's fantastic! Indeed it looks like in the pricing docs. I am
sure we discussed before that there is a limit :).

J.


On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 12:41 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <tu...@apache.org>
wrote:

> I have checked and Github Actions have unlimited minutes for open
> repositories.
>
> T
>
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 12:27, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I am working on some last fixes to Kind improvement PR and get it ready
> to
> > merge today - I hope :). Also looking forward to moving out of Travis
> > finally.
> >
> > One more thought - we think the best way to approach it is to enable
> Github
> > Actions in parallel to Travis and keep it running in parallel to make
> sure
> > it is stable.
> >
> > Then we can disable Travis but we can keep it available to switch it on
> > again as needed.
> >
> > I think the main semi-open point we have with GA is the availability of
> > credits for GCP.  The free minutes from Github will not be enough for
> sure,
> > Tomek already runs it on the GCP account we got from Google, but we need
> to
> > secure the credits for the future as well. I will take on that task with
> > Aizhamal but we need to keep it running for some time to understand what
> > the usage might be.
> >
> > We can also talk to Github and other providers as well and maybe get some
> > credit donations from other people/companies (maybe we could join 'Github
> > Sponsors" project and start getting some money through that
> > https://github.com/sponsors)? I think having several sources of funding
> > for
> > our compute resources might be a good idea. WDYT?
> >
> > J
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, that would be nice.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 10:35 Tomasz Urbaszek <tu...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > An additional advantage of GA + self-hosted runners is the ability to
> > > > ssh to machine and see what is going on (for example why tests
> > timeout).
> > > >
> > > > T.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 4:23 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Awesome Tomek, great job. Waiting for your PR eagerly :) and can't
> > wait
> > > > to
> > > > > move out of Travis.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:54 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just a small update:
> > > > > > - after Jarek's changes from
> > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6516
> > > > > > kubernetes
> > > > > >   builds started to run (proviously there was an issue with kind)
> > > > > > - I am testing self-hosted runners
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems that possible migration is getting closer ;)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:28 PM Philippe Gagnon <
> > > philgagnon1@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > We have been using Actions on the prestosql project for a
> little
> > > > while
> > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > Travis replacement and we like it a lot.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 9:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > :(
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:35 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I started to play with self-hosted runner and... well,
> > > > encountered
> > > > > > > known
> > > > > > > > > error:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.community/t5/GitHub-Actions/Github-action-stuck-at-queue/td-p/38003
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It seems that GA is still maturing.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 5:06 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yeah. All at once seems more than reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > J.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:50 PM Kaxil Naik <
> > > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Agree with Daniel, let's do it all at once.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:49 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > > > > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I’d rather we do it all at once and not need to
> > maintain
> > > > two
> > > > > > > > builds.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Most/all of our CI/CD is dockerized at this point so
> > > there
> > > > > > > > shouldn’t
> > > > > > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > > > > > > huge difference.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:23 AM, Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I have to solve a problem with our kubernetes test
> but
> > > for
> > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > I have never experienced a flaky
> > > > > > > > > > > > or timeouted build on Github Actions. Maybe I am
> lucky
> > or
> > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > > > > > something different.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If we agree to move to Github Actions, would we like
> to
> > > > > migrate
> > > > > > > > > > > > incrementally or fully?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No problem on that side - Tomek is using the same
> > > scripts
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (and they generally work - I think the last step is
> > to
> > > > make
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests pass. We have still a number of dependencies
> > > > between
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > environmental flakiness so that some tests
> > consistently
> > > > > fail
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Actions where they did not fail in Travis. From
> > latest
> > > > try
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > looks like we are 1 test to go (plus some
> > cleanup/setup
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > making sure all is stable):
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== 1 failed, 4030 passed, 119 skipped, 16
> warnings
> > in
> > > > > > > 1207.96s
> > > > > > > > > > > > (0:20:07)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > =====
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We discussed with Tomek and Kamil that in order to
> > > speed
> > > > it
> > > > > > up
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > want to run our own workers on the GCP account we
> > have
> > > -
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > quickly how much we can optimise it and I am
> inclined
> > > to
> > > > > > agree.
> > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this way, the transition might be rather fast.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If we want to use auto-scalable GKE cluster as we
> > > > > originally
> > > > > > > > > planned
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > might take more time to setup (similar setup to
> what
> > I
> > > > > tried
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > GitLab).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > There we might need to use docker-in-docker to
> build
> > > the
> > > > CI
> > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > latest as first step of build and then use that
> built
> > > > image
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent steps. But we can do it as the next
> step -
> > > > > > > optimising
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > experience.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 on my end as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @jarek does this affect anything involving
> breeze?
> > Do
> > > > > > GitHub
> > > > > > > > > > actions
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an easy docker/docker-compose based workflow?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > via Newton Mail [
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:28 AM, Ash
> Berlin-Taylor
> > <
> > > > > > > > > ash@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Legal: no I don't think so.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there to
> run
> > > > things
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "hardware" -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > needs someone with Admin rights to create, and I
> > > don't
> > > > > see
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > Settings
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tab
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > at all.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -ash
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <
> > > > > > > xd.deng.r@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it for
> > > > months
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > side
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > projects, and it’s working very well. I believe
> > > most
> > > > of
> > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tired
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the waiting time using Travis CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only point I would like to remind is
> whether
> > we
> > > > > need
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > communicate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with Infra/Legal team for this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XD
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <
> > > > > > > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> +1 for Github actions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> > > > > > > > ash@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Happy with any thing that gives a more
> seamless
> > > CI
> > > > > > > > > experience -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > faster
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> good too!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal
> > > Nurmamat
> > > > > > kyzy <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than
> > > > helpful
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> recently it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> seems that running PRs from forks will only
> > be
> > > > run
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > Enterrprise
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Edition,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> which is less than welcome. I am quite a
> bit
> > > > > > > disappointed
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> pace and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much
> > > better
> > > > > > > choice -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> they are closely integrated with Github
> repo
> > > and
> > > > > seem
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as well,
> > > which
> > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > possible
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> for us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to optimise the experience.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz
> > > Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed using
> > > other
> > > > CI
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > Travis.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > One
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI
> > was
> > > > its
> > > > > > > > ability
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over time of
> > few
> > > > long
> > > > > > > weeks
> > > > > > > > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Actions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> matured enough to allow using self-hosted
> > > > runners!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but using
> > > them
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> advantages:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - they are Github natives
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions will
> run
> > > CI
> > > > on
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> automatically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks,
> greetings,
> > > etc)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our internal
> > > repo:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like
> > > information
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > steps
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> successes at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to check
> > > which
> > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > failed).
> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> build
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but it
> > works.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Does any of you have any experience with
> > > Github
> > > > > > > Actions?
> > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> thoughts
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> about using it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Tomek
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the
> history
> > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > GitLabCI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (featuring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek
> Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab experiences so
> > far:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we
> > can
> > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> replicate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can
> > > say -
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> works, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > Airflow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing (while
> I
> > am
> > > > no
> > > > > > > > > holidays)
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> once we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> see
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> it running and get the support for PRs
> > from
> > > > > GitLab
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> switch to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call a vote
> > or
> > > > just
> > > > > > try
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> up ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some details
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I manged to get full working builds in
> > > > > GitLabCI
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> kubernetes -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> without the kubernetes-specific tests
> yet,
> > > but
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> rather easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> with kind (looking at it next):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Working example here - you can take a
> > look
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > compare
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> UI/how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >
> https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis
> > so
> > > > far
> > > > > > > (still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> around 35
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> minutes in total), but I plan to
> optimise
> > it
> > > > > > > further.
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> play
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> memory/cpu settings of individual
> workers
> > > (Got
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> reasonable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> values now),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I can use local SSD disk as Docker
> > > > > > storage/logs/etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up
> > for
> > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > > 24) -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> let us build 3 builds in parallel
> > > > independently
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I managed to get Preemptible nodes
> > working
> > > > (we
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > built
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> retry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism in GitLab to work in case of
> > > system
> > > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Current spending with > 120 builds is
> 40
> > > > USD.
> > > > > We
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> below
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 500 USD/month according to my
> > > > > back-of-the-envelope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> calculations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Likely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> well below
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - The current setup does not use GCR as
> > > cache
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > Kaniko
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> originally planned. GCR would require
> > custom
> > > > > > > > > > authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does
> not
> > > yet
> > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> multi-staging
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> builds (cache does not work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682
> > > > > > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> updated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reflect that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - We only use GCR as mirroring of
> > DockerHub
> > > -
> > > > so
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reliable downloads not depending on
> > > > DockerHub's
> > > > > > > > > stability
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (it has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> sometimes)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It
> > could
> > > > be
> > > > > > run
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Kubernetes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cluster (some optimisations like local
> > > volumes
> > > > > > > > mounting
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> docker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> engine
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> might have GCP-specific assumptions, but
> > > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> replicable).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - You can take a look at the current
> > source
> > > > code
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - There will be some updates (I will get
> > rid
> > > > of
> > > > > > > custom
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> builder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Docker,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> simplify it a bit and implement
> kubernetes
> > > > > tests)
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific
> > > > variables
> > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > gitlab.ci
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> yaml
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> job definitions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek
> > > Potiuk
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on
> automatically
> > > > > running
> > > > > > > > builds
> > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> for PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> :).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be out
> > advocate
> > > > on
> > > > > > it:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129
> > <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik
> Jarek
> > > > > Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> napisał:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate comment in
> > the
> > > > > > GitLab
> > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of Jason
> Lenny
> > -
> > > > > > director
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > Product
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Management @
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it
> > > > quickly
> > > > > > > > enough.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential
> > > > complexity/Maintenance -
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > order
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> alleviate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think about
> > setting
> > > > up
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > whole
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> system on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to
> > > > Travis
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> (even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it at
> any
> > > > time.
> > > > > > Then
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to tune
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases and
> > compare
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> systems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in two
> > weeks
> > > > and
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> sure that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with GitLab +
> > > > Kubernetes
> > > > > > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (from my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> company)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure there
> > will
> > > > be
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> However
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is going to
> > > > happen
> > > > > > > while
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> away. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> would also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers who
> would
> > > > like
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > join
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to
> > > learn
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil
> > > > Breguła
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to
> > solve
> > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> building
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation from the
> > > > master
> > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Currently,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD
> service.
> > > > > > > > > Unfortunately,
> > > > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the documentation
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > > > built
> > > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another way to
> > > build
> > > > > > > > > > documentation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ideal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation should
> > use
> > > > the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> environment as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding
> > this
> > > > > step
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the fact
> > that
> > > > our
> > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> soon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation will
> also
> > > be
> > > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are
> taking
> > > > place
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > design
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> studio
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make these
> > > websites
> > > > > ;-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an environment that
> > > will
> > > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> build a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At best,
> > these
> > > > > tasks
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> combined.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to create a
> > > > website
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> real
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on current
> > > > events,
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> updated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project will
> > > grow.
> > > > If
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the significance of
> > > these
> > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> future
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to
> > > provide
> > > > a
> > > > > > > stable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> infrastructure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another
> situation
> > > > which
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> pleasant for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but
> > > > because
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > Travis,
> > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> had to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wait
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I
> > > would
> > > > > > send
> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> week,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a few
> > hours.
> > > > > > > Although I
> > > > > > > > > did
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> over
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that the
> > queue
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > blocked
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Travis by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek
> > > > Potiuk
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where I
> > > described
> > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> architecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can deploy
> > fairly
> > > > > > quickly
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding for GCP
> > > > > resources.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on
> > > > > > Proof-Of-Concept
> > > > > > > > soon
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get some
> > > > comments
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > opinions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the basic
> > approach
> > > > > with
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > friend
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Kamil
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> works at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and
> > > this
> > > > is
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details and
> make
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> proposal -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments in
> the
> > > > > > document.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think about it
> > and
> > > > if
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consensus
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or maybe
> go
> > > via
> > > > > > lasy
> > > > > > > > > > > consensus
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have rather
> > quickly)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/>
> |
> > > > > > Principal
> > > > > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129
> > > <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <
> > > > https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> > > > > Principal
> > > > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129
> > <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <
> > > https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> > > > Principal
> > > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129
> <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <
> > https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> > > Principal
> > > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129
> <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <
> https://www.polidea.com/
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> > Principal
> > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > > Software
> > > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > > > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software
> > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > > > > > > > > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <
> > > > tomasz.urbaszeki@polidea.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unique Tech
> > > > > > > > > > > > Check out our projects! <
> > > https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software
> > Engineer
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > > > > > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <
> tomasz.urbaszeki@polidea.com
> > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Unique Tech
> > > > > > > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > Engineer
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Software Engineer
> > > > > >
> > > > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unique Tech
> > > > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Jarek Potiuk
> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> >
> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> >
>


-- 

Jarek Potiuk
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer

M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Tomasz Urbaszek <tu...@apache.org>.

I have checked and Github Actions have unlimited minutes for open
repositories.

T

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 12:27, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com> wrote:

> I am working on some last fixes to Kind improvement PR and get it ready to
> merge today - I hope :). Also looking forward to moving out of Travis
> finally.
>
> One more thought - we think the best way to approach it is to enable Github
> Actions in parallel to Travis and keep it running in parallel to make sure
> it is stable.
>
> Then we can disable Travis but we can keep it available to switch it on
> again as needed.
>
> I think the main semi-open point we have with GA is the availability of
> credits for GCP.  The free minutes from Github will not be enough for sure,
> Tomek already runs it on the GCP account we got from Google, but we need to
> secure the credits for the future as well. I will take on that task with
> Aizhamal but we need to keep it running for some time to understand what
> the usage might be.
>
> We can also talk to Github and other providers as well and maybe get some
> credit donations from other people/companies (maybe we could join 'Github
> Sponsors" project and start getting some money through that
> https://github.com/sponsors)? I think having several sources of funding
> for
> our compute resources might be a good idea. WDYT?
>
> J
>
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, that would be nice.
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 10:35 Tomasz Urbaszek <tu...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > An additional advantage of GA + self-hosted runners is the ability to
> > > ssh to machine and see what is going on (for example why tests
> timeout).
> > >
> > > T.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 4:23 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Awesome Tomek, great job. Waiting for your PR eagerly :) and can't
> wait
> > > to
> > > > move out of Travis.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:54 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Just a small update:
> > > > > - after Jarek's changes from
> > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6516
> > > > > kubernetes
> > > > >   builds started to run (proviously there was an issue with kind)
> > > > > - I am testing self-hosted runners
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems that possible migration is getting closer ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > Bests,
> > > > > Tomek
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:28 PM Philippe Gagnon <
> > philgagnon1@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > We have been using Actions on the prestosql project for a little
> > > while
> > > > > as a
> > > > > > Travis replacement and we like it a lot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 9:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > :(
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:35 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I started to play with self-hosted runner and... well,
> > > encountered
> > > > > > known
> > > > > > > > error:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.community/t5/GitHub-Actions/Github-action-stuck-at-queue/td-p/38003
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It seems that GA is still maturing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 5:06 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yeah. All at once seems more than reasonable.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > J.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:50 PM Kaxil Naik <
> > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Agree with Daniel, let's do it all at once.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:49 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > > > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I’d rather we do it all at once and not need to
> maintain
> > > two
> > > > > > > builds.
> > > > > > > > > > > Most/all of our CI/CD is dockerized at this point so
> > there
> > > > > > > shouldn’t
> > > > > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > > > > > huge difference.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:23 AM, Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I have to solve a problem with our kubernetes test but
> > for
> > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > I have never experienced a flaky
> > > > > > > > > > > or timeouted build on Github Actions. Maybe I am lucky
> or
> > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > > > > something different.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If we agree to move to Github Actions, would we like to
> > > > migrate
> > > > > > > > > > > incrementally or fully?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > No problem on that side - Tomek is using the same
> > scripts
> > > > we
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > > > > > (and they generally work - I think the last step is
> to
> > > make
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests pass. We have still a number of dependencies
> > > between
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > environmental flakiness so that some tests
> consistently
> > > > fail
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > > > > > Actions where they did not fail in Travis. From
> latest
> > > try
> > > > by
> > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > looks like we are 1 test to go (plus some
> cleanup/setup
> > > of
> > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > making sure all is stable):
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ==== 1 failed, 4030 passed, 119 skipped, 16 warnings
> in
> > > > > > 1207.96s
> > > > > > > > > > > (0:20:07)
> > > > > > > > > > > > =====
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We discussed with Tomek and Kamil that in order to
> > speed
> > > it
> > > > > up
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > want to run our own workers on the GCP account we
> have
> > -
> > > > just
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > > quickly how much we can optimise it and I am inclined
> > to
> > > > > agree.
> > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > this way, the transition might be rather fast.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If we want to use auto-scalable GKE cluster as we
> > > > originally
> > > > > > > > planned
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > might take more time to setup (similar setup to what
> I
> > > > tried
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > GitLab).
> > > > > > > > > > > > There we might need to use docker-in-docker to build
> > the
> > > CI
> > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > latest as first step of build and then use that built
> > > image
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent steps. But we can do it as the next step -
> > > > > > optimising
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > experience.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > J.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > > > > > > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 on my end as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > @jarek does this affect anything involving breeze?
> Do
> > > > > GitHub
> > > > > > > > > actions
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > an easy docker/docker-compose based workflow?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > via Newton Mail [
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:28 AM, Ash Berlin-Taylor
> <
> > > > > > > > ash@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Legal: no I don't think so.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there to run
> > > things
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "hardware" -
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > needs someone with Admin rights to create, and I
> > don't
> > > > see
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > Settings
> > > > > > > > > > > > tab
> > > > > > > > > > > > > at all.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -ash
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <
> > > > > > xd.deng.r@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it for
> > > months
> > > > > for
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > side
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > projects, and it’s working very well. I believe
> > most
> > > of
> > > > > us
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tired
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the waiting time using Travis CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only point I would like to remind is whether
> we
> > > > need
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > communicate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with Infra/Legal team for this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > XD
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <
> > > > > > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> +1 for Github actions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> > > > > > > ash@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless
> > CI
> > > > > > > > experience -
> > > > > > > > > > > > faster
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> good too!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal
> > Nurmamat
> > > > > kyzy <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than
> > > helpful
> > > > so
> > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> recently it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> seems that running PRs from forks will only
> be
> > > run
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > Enterrprise
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Edition,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit
> > > > > > disappointed
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> pace and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much
> > better
> > > > > > choice -
> > > > > > > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> they are closely integrated with Github repo
> > and
> > > > seem
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as well,
> > which
> > > > > makes
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > possible
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> for us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to optimise the experience.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz
> > Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed using
> > other
> > > CI
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > Travis.
> > > > > > > > > > > > One
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI
> was
> > > its
> > > > > > > ability
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over time of
> few
> > > long
> > > > > > weeks
> > > > > > > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Actions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> matured enough to allow using self-hosted
> > > runners!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but using
> > them
> > > > have
> > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> advantages:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - they are Github natives
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions will run
> > CI
> > > on
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> automatically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings,
> > etc)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our internal
> > repo:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like
> > information
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > steps
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> successes at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to check
> > which
> > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > failed).
> > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> build
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but it
> works.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Does any of you have any experience with
> > Github
> > > > > > Actions?
> > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> thoughts
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> about using it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Tomek
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the history
> > > behind
> > > > > > > > GitLabCI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (featuring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab experiences so
> far:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we
> can
> > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> replicate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can
> > say -
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> works, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in
> > the
> > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > Airflow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing (while I
> am
> > > no
> > > > > > > > holidays)
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> once we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> see
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> it running and get the support for PRs
> from
> > > > GitLab
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> switch to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call a vote
> or
> > > just
> > > > > try
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> up ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some details
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I manged to get full working builds in
> > > > GitLabCI
> > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> kubernetes -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> without the kubernetes-specific tests yet,
> > but
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> rather easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> with kind (looking at it next):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Working example here - you can take a
> look
> > > and
> > > > > > > compare
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> UI/how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis
> so
> > > far
> > > > > > (still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> around 35
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> minutes in total), but I plan to optimise
> it
> > > > > > further.
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> play
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> memory/cpu settings of individual workers
> > (Got
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> reasonable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> values now),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I can use local SSD disk as Docker
> > > > > storage/logs/etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up
> for
> > > > > initial
> > > > > > > > 24) -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> let us build 3 builds in parallel
> > > independently
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I managed to get Preemptible nodes
> working
> > > (we
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > built
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> retry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism in GitLab to work in case of
> > system
> > > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40
> > > USD.
> > > > We
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> below
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 500 USD/month according to my
> > > > back-of-the-envelope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> calculations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Likely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> well below
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - The current setup does not use GCR as
> > cache
> > > > and
> > > > > > > Kaniko
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> originally planned. GCR would require
> custom
> > > > > > > > > authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not
> > yet
> > > > > well
> > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> multi-staging
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> builds (cache does not work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682
> > > > > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> updated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reflect that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - We only use GCR as mirroring of
> DockerHub
> > -
> > > so
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reliable downloads not depending on
> > > DockerHub's
> > > > > > > > stability
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (it has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> sometimes)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It
> could
> > > be
> > > > > run
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Kubernetes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cluster (some optimisations like local
> > volumes
> > > > > > > mounting
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> docker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> engine
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> might have GCP-specific assumptions, but
> > > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> replicable).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - You can take a look at the current
> source
> > > code
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - There will be some updates (I will get
> rid
> > > of
> > > > > > custom
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> builder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Docker,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes
> > > > tests)
> > > > > -
> > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific
> > > variables
> > > > +
> > > > > > > > > gitlab.ci
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> yaml
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> job definitions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek
> > Potiuk
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on automatically
> > > > running
> > > > > > > builds
> > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> for PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> :).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be out
> advocate
> > > on
> > > > > it:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129
> <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek
> > > > Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> napisał:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate comment in
> the
> > > > > GitLab
> > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny
> -
> > > > > director
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > Product
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Management @
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it
> > > quickly
> > > > > > > enough.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential
> > > complexity/Maintenance -
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > order
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> alleviate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think about
> setting
> > > up
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > whole
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> system on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to
> > > Travis
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> (even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it at any
> > > time.
> > > > > Then
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> able
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to tune
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases and
> compare
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> systems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in two
> weeks
> > > and
> > > > I
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> sure that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with GitLab +
> > > Kubernetes
> > > > > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (from my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> company)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure there
> will
> > > be
> > > > no
> > > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> However
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is going to
> > > happen
> > > > > > while
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> away. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> would also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers who would
> > > like
> > > > to
> > > > > > > join
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to
> > learn
> > > > and
> > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil
> > > Breguła
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to
> solve
> > > > other
> > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> building
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation from the
> > > master
> > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Currently,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD service.
> > > > > > > > Unfortunately,
> > > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the documentation
> is
> > > not
> > > > > > built
> > > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another way to
> > build
> > > > > > > > > documentation.
> > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ideal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation should
> use
> > > the
> > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> environment as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding
> this
> > > > step
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the fact
> that
> > > our
> > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> soon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation will also
> > be
> > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking
> > > place
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > design
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> studio
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make these
> > websites
> > > > ;-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an environment that
> > will
> > > > > allow
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> build a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At best,
> these
> > > > tasks
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> combined.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to create a
> > > website
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> real
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on current
> > > events,
> > > > so
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> updated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project will
> > grow.
> > > If
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the significance of
> > these
> > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> future
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to
> > provide
> > > a
> > > > > > stable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> infrastructure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another situation
> > > which
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> pleasant for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but
> > > because
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > Travis,
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> had to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wait
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I
> > would
> > > > > send
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> week,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a few
> hours.
> > > > > > Although I
> > > > > > > > did
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> over
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that the
> queue
> > > is
> > > > > > > blocked
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Travis by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek
> > > Potiuk
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where I
> > described
> > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> architecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can deploy
> fairly
> > > > > quickly
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding for GCP
> > > > resources.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on
> > > > > Proof-Of-Concept
> > > > > > > soon
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get some
> > > comments
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > opinions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the basic
> approach
> > > > with
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > friend
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Kamil
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> works at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and
> > this
> > > is
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details and make
> > > > changes
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> proposal -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments in the
> > > > > document.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think about it
> and
> > > if
> > > > we
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consensus
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or maybe go
> > via
> > > > > lasy
> > > > > > > > > > consensus
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have rather
> quickly)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> > > > > Principal
> > > > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129
> > <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <
> > > https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> > > > Principal
> > > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129
> <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <
> > https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> > > Principal
> > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <
> https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> > Principal
> > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> Principal
> > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > Software
> > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > > > > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software
> > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > > > > > > > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <
> > > tomasz.urbaszeki@polidea.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Unique Tech
> > > > > > > > > > > Check out our projects! <
> > https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software
> Engineer
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > > > > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <tomasz.urbaszeki@polidea.com
> >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unique Tech
> > > > > > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> Engineer
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Software Engineer
> > > > >
> > > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Unique Tech
> > > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Jarek Potiuk
> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>
> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>.

I am working on some last fixes to Kind improvement PR and get it ready to
merge today - I hope :). Also looking forward to moving out of Travis
finally.

One more thought - we think the best way to approach it is to enable Github
Actions in parallel to Travis and keep it running in parallel to make sure
it is stable.

Then we can disable Travis but we can keep it available to switch it on
again as needed.

I think the main semi-open point we have with GA is the availability of
credits for GCP.  The free minutes from Github will not be enough for sure,
Tomek already runs it on the GCP account we got from Google, but we need to
secure the credits for the future as well. I will take on that task with
Aizhamal but we need to keep it running for some time to understand what
the usage might be.

We can also talk to Github and other providers as well and maybe get some
credit donations from other people/companies (maybe we could join 'Github
Sponsors" project and start getting some money through that
https://github.com/sponsors)? I think having several sources of funding for
our compute resources might be a good idea. WDYT?

J

On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, that would be nice.
>
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 10:35 Tomasz Urbaszek <tu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > An additional advantage of GA + self-hosted runners is the ability to
> > ssh to machine and see what is going on (for example why tests timeout).
> >
> > T.
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 4:23 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Awesome Tomek, great job. Waiting for your PR eagerly :) and can't wait
> > to
> > > move out of Travis.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:54 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Just a small update:
> > > > - after Jarek's changes from
> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6516
> > > > kubernetes
> > > >   builds started to run (proviously there was an issue with kind)
> > > > - I am testing self-hosted runners
> > > >
> > > > It seems that possible migration is getting closer ;)
> > > >
> > > > Bests,
> > > > Tomek
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:28 PM Philippe Gagnon <
> philgagnon1@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We have been using Actions on the prestosql project for a little
> > while
> > > > as a
> > > > > Travis replacement and we like it a lot.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 9:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > :(
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:35 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I started to play with self-hosted runner and... well,
> > encountered
> > > > > known
> > > > > > > error:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.community/t5/GitHub-Actions/Github-action-stuck-at-queue/td-p/38003
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It seems that GA is still maturing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 5:06 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yeah. All at once seems more than reasonable.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > J.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:50 PM Kaxil Naik <
> > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Agree with Daniel, let's do it all at once.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:49 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I’d rather we do it all at once and not need to maintain
> > two
> > > > > > builds.
> > > > > > > > > > Most/all of our CI/CD is dockerized at this point so
> there
> > > > > > shouldn’t
> > > > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > > > > huge difference.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:23 AM, Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have to solve a problem with our kubernetes test but
> for
> > > your
> > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > I have never experienced a flaky
> > > > > > > > > > or timeouted build on Github Actions. Maybe I am lucky or
> > > maybe
> > > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > > > something different.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If we agree to move to Github Actions, would we like to
> > > migrate
> > > > > > > > > > incrementally or fully?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > No problem on that side - Tomek is using the same
> scripts
> > > we
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > > > > (and they generally work - I think the last step is to
> > make
> > > > all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > tests pass. We have still a number of dependencies
> > between
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > environmental flakiness so that some tests consistently
> > > fail
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > > > > Actions where they did not fail in Travis. From latest
> > try
> > > by
> > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > looks like we are 1 test to go (plus some cleanup/setup
> > of
> > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > making sure all is stable):
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ==== 1 failed, 4030 passed, 119 skipped, 16 warnings in
> > > > > 1207.96s
> > > > > > > > > > (0:20:07)
> > > > > > > > > > > =====
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We discussed with Tomek and Kamil that in order to
> speed
> > it
> > > > up
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > want to run our own workers on the GCP account we have
> -
> > > just
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > > quickly how much we can optimise it and I am inclined
> to
> > > > agree.
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > this way, the transition might be rather fast.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If we want to use auto-scalable GKE cluster as we
> > > originally
> > > > > > > planned
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > might take more time to setup (similar setup to what I
> > > tried
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > GitLab).
> > > > > > > > > > > There we might need to use docker-in-docker to build
> the
> > CI
> > > > > image
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > latest as first step of build and then use that built
> > image
> > > > by
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > subsequent steps. But we can do it as the next step -
> > > > > optimising
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > experience.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > J.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > > > > > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 on my end as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > @jarek does this affect anything involving breeze? Do
> > > > GitHub
> > > > > > > > actions
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > an easy docker/docker-compose based workflow?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > via Newton Mail [
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2
> > > > > > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:28 AM, Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> > > > > > > ash@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Legal: no I don't think so.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there to run
> > things
> > > > on
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > "hardware" -
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > needs someone with Admin rights to create, and I
> don't
> > > see
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Settings
> > > > > > > > > > > tab
> > > > > > > > > > > > at all.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -ash
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <
> > > > > xd.deng.r@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it for
> > months
> > > > for
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > > side
> > > > > > > > > > > > > projects, and it’s working very well. I believe
> most
> > of
> > > > us
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > > > > tired
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of the waiting time using Travis CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The only point I would like to remind is whether we
> > > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > communicate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with Infra/Legal team for this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > XD
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <
> > > > > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> +1 for Github actions
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> > > > > > ash@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless
> CI
> > > > > > > experience -
> > > > > > > > > > > faster
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> good too!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal
> Nurmamat
> > > > kyzy <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than
> > helpful
> > > so
> > > > > far
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> recently it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> seems that running PRs from forks will only be
> > run
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > Enterrprise
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Edition,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit
> > > > > disappointed
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> pace and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much
> better
> > > > > choice -
> > > > > > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> they are closely integrated with Github repo
> and
> > > seem
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as well,
> which
> > > > makes
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > possible
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> for us
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to optimise the experience.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz
> Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed using
> other
> > CI
> > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > Travis.
> > > > > > > > > > > One
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was
> > its
> > > > > > ability
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over time of few
> > long
> > > > > weeks
> > > > > > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Actions
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> matured enough to allow using self-hosted
> > runners!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but using
> them
> > > have
> > > > > few
> > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> advantages:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - they are Github natives
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions will run
> CI
> > on
> > > > > your
> > > > > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> automatically
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings,
> etc)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our internal
> repo:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like
> information
> > > > about
> > > > > > > steps
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> successes at
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to check
> which
> > > > step
> > > > > > > > failed).
> > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> build
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Does any of you have any experience with
> Github
> > > > > Actions?
> > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> thoughts
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> about using it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Tomek
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the history
> > behind
> > > > > > > GitLabCI
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (featuring
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can
> > > > fairly
> > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> replicate
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can
> say -
> > > it
> > > > > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> works, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in
> the
> > > > main
> > > > > > > > Airflow
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am
> > no
> > > > > > > holidays)
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> once we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> see
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> it running and get the support for PRs from
> > > GitLab
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> switch to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call a vote or
> > just
> > > > try
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> up ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some details
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I manged to get full working builds in
> > > GitLabCI
> > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> kubernetes -
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> without the kubernetes-specific tests yet,
> but
> > > > this
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> rather easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> with kind (looking at it next):
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Working example here - you can take a look
> > and
> > > > > > compare
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> UI/how
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so
> > far
> > > > > (still
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> around 35
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it
> > > > > further.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> play
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> memory/cpu settings of individual workers
> (Got
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> reasonable
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> values now),
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I can use local SSD disk as Docker
> > > > storage/logs/etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for
> > > > initial
> > > > > > > 24) -
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> let us build 3 builds in parallel
> > independently
> > > > from
> > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working
> > (we
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > built
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> retry
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism in GitLab to work in case of
> system
> > > > > failures
> > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40
> > USD.
> > > We
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> way
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> below
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 500 USD/month according to my
> > > back-of-the-envelope
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> calculations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Likely
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> well below
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - The current setup does not use GCR as
> cache
> > > and
> > > > > > Kaniko
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> originally planned. GCR would require custom
> > > > > > > > authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not
> yet
> > > > well
> > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> multi-staging
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> builds (cache does not work
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682
> > > > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> updated
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reflect that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub
> -
> > so
> > > > > that
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reliable downloads not depending on
> > DockerHub's
> > > > > > > stability
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (it has
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> sometimes)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could
> > be
> > > > run
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Kubernetes
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cluster (some optimisations like local
> volumes
> > > > > > mounting
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> docker
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> engine
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> might have GCP-specific assumptions, but
> > should
> > > be
> > > > > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> replicable).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - You can take a look at the current source
> > code
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - There will be some updates (I will get rid
> > of
> > > > > custom
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> builder
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Docker,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes
> > > tests)
> > > > -
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific
> > variables
> > > +
> > > > > > > > gitlab.ci
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> yaml
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> job definitions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek
> Potiuk
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on automatically
> > > running
> > > > > > builds
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> for PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> :).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate
> > on
> > > > it:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek
> > > Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> napisał:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the
> > > > GitLab
> > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> about
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny -
> > > > director
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > Product
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Management @
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it
> > quickly
> > > > > > enough.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential
> > complexity/Maintenance -
> > > > in
> > > > > > > order
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> alleviate
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think about setting
> > up
> > > > the
> > > > > > > whole
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> system on
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to
> > Travis
> > > > for
> > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> time
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> (even
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it at any
> > time.
> > > > Then
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> able
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to tune
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases and compare
> > the
> > > > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> both
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> systems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks
> > and
> > > I
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> sure that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with GitLab +
> > Kubernetes
> > > > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (from my
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> company)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure there will
> > be
> > > no
> > > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> However
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is going to
> > happen
> > > > > while
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> away. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> would also
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers who would
> > like
> > > to
> > > > > > join
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to
> learn
> > > and
> > > > > see
> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and how
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil
> > Breguła
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve
> > > other
> > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> building
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation from the
> > master
> > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Currently,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD service.
> > > > > > > Unfortunately,
> > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the documentation is
> > not
> > > > > built
> > > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another way to
> build
> > > > > > > > documentation.
> > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ideal
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation should use
> > the
> > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> environment as
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this
> > > step
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> further
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that
> > our
> > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> soon
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation will also
> be
> > > > > > available
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking
> > place
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > design
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> studio
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make these
> websites
> > > ;-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an environment that
> will
> > > > allow
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> build a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At best, these
> > > tasks
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> combined.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to create a
> > website
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> real
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on current
> > events,
> > > so
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> updated
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project will
> grow.
> > If
> > > > we
> > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the significance of
> these
> > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> future
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to
> provide
> > a
> > > > > stable
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> infrastructure
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another situation
> > which
> > > > was
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> pleasant for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but
> > because
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > Travis,
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> had to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wait
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I
> would
> > > > send
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> week,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a few hours.
> > > > > Although I
> > > > > > > did
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> over
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue
> > is
> > > > > > blocked
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Travis by
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> my
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek
> > Potiuk
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where I
> described
> > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> architecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can deploy fairly
> > > > quickly
> > > > > -
> > > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding for GCP
> > > resources.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on
> > > > Proof-Of-Concept
> > > > > > soon
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> before
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> start
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get some
> > comments
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > opinions
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the basic approach
> > > with
> > > > my
> > > > > > > > friend
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Kamil
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> who
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> works at
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and
> this
> > is
> > > > > what
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details and make
> > > changes
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> proposal -
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments in the
> > > > document.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think about it and
> > if
> > > we
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consensus
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or maybe go
> via
> > > > lasy
> > > > > > > > > consensus
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have rather quickly)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> > > > Principal
> > > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129
> <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <
> > https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> > > Principal
> > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <
> https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> > Principal
> > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> Principal
> > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> Software
> > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > > > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software
> > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > > > > > > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <
> > tomasz.urbaszeki@polidea.com
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Unique Tech
> > > > > > > > > > Check out our projects! <
> https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > Engineer
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > > > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unique Tech
> > > > > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > > > > >
> > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Software Engineer
> > > >
> > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
> > > >
> > > > Unique Tech
> > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


-- 

Jarek Potiuk
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer

M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>.

Yeah, that would be nice.

On Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 10:35 Tomasz Urbaszek <tu...@apache.org> wrote:

> An additional advantage of GA + self-hosted runners is the ability to
> ssh to machine and see what is going on (for example why tests timeout).
>
> T.
>
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 4:23 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Awesome Tomek, great job. Waiting for your PR eagerly :) and can't wait
> to
> > move out of Travis.
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:54 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Just a small update:
> > > - after Jarek's changes from
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6516
> > > kubernetes
> > >   builds started to run (proviously there was an issue with kind)
> > > - I am testing self-hosted runners
> > >
> > > It seems that possible migration is getting closer ;)
> > >
> > > Bests,
> > > Tomek
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:28 PM Philippe Gagnon <philgagnon1@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > We have been using Actions on the prestosql project for a little
> while
> > > as a
> > > > Travis replacement and we like it a lot.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 9:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > :(
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:35 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I started to play with self-hosted runner and... well,
> encountered
> > > > known
> > > > > > error:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.community/t5/GitHub-Actions/Github-action-stuck-at-queue/td-p/38003
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems that GA is still maturing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 5:06 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah. All at once seems more than reasonable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > J.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:50 PM Kaxil Naik <
> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Agree with Daniel, let's do it all at once.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:49 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I’d rather we do it all at once and not need to maintain
> two
> > > > > builds.
> > > > > > > > > Most/all of our CI/CD is dockerized at this point so there
> > > > > shouldn’t
> > > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > > > huge difference.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:23 AM, Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have to solve a problem with our kubernetes test but for
> > your
> > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > I have never experienced a flaky
> > > > > > > > > or timeouted build on Github Actions. Maybe I am lucky or
> > maybe
> > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > > something different.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If we agree to move to Github Actions, would we like to
> > migrate
> > > > > > > > > incrementally or fully?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No problem on that side - Tomek is using the same scripts
> > we
> > > > have
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > > > (and they generally work - I think the last step is to
> make
> > > all
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > tests pass. We have still a number of dependencies
> between
> > > > tests
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > environmental flakiness so that some tests consistently
> > fail
> > > in
> > > > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > > > Actions where they did not fail in Travis. From latest
> try
> > by
> > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > looks like we are 1 test to go (plus some cleanup/setup
> of
> > > > > project
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > making sure all is stable):
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ==== 1 failed, 4030 passed, 119 skipped, 16 warnings in
> > > > 1207.96s
> > > > > > > > > (0:20:07)
> > > > > > > > > > =====
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We discussed with Tomek and Kamil that in order to speed
> it
> > > up
> > > > we
> > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > want to run our own workers on the GCP account we have -
> > just
> > > > to
> > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > quickly how much we can optimise it and I am inclined to
> > > agree.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > this way, the transition might be rather fast.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If we want to use auto-scalable GKE cluster as we
> > originally
> > > > > > planned
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > might take more time to setup (similar setup to what I
> > tried
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > > GitLab).
> > > > > > > > > > There we might need to use docker-in-docker to build the
> CI
> > > > image
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > latest as first step of build and then use that built
> image
> > > by
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > subsequent steps. But we can do it as the next step -
> > > > optimising
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > experience.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > J.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > > > > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +1 on my end as well.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > @jarek does this affect anything involving breeze? Do
> > > GitHub
> > > > > > > actions
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > an easy docker/docker-compose based workflow?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > via Newton Mail [
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2
> > > > > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:28 AM, Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> > > > > > ash@apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Legal: no I don't think so.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there to run
> things
> > > on
> > > > > our
> > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > "hardware" -
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > needs someone with Admin rights to create, and I don't
> > see
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > Settings
> > > > > > > > > > tab
> > > > > > > > > > > at all.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -ash
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <
> > > > xd.deng.r@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it for
> months
> > > for
> > > > my
> > > > > > > side
> > > > > > > > > > > > projects, and it’s working very well. I believe most
> of
> > > us
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > > > tired
> > > > > > > > > > > > of the waiting time using Travis CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The only point I would like to remind is whether we
> > need
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > communicate
> > > > > > > > > > > > with Infra/Legal team for this.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > XD
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <
> > > > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> +1 for Github actions
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> > > > > ash@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI
> > > > > > experience -
> > > > > > > > > > faster
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> good too!
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> -a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat
> > > kyzy <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than
> helpful
> > so
> > > > far
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> recently it
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> seems that running PRs from forks will only be
> run
> > in
> > > > > > > > Enterrprise
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Edition,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit
> > > > disappointed
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> pace and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better
> > > > choice -
> > > > > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> they are closely integrated with Github repo and
> > seem
> > > > to
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which
> > > makes
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > possible
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> for us
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to optimise the experience.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed using other
> CI
> > > > than
> > > > > > > > Travis.
> > > > > > > > > > One
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was
> its
> > > > > ability
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over time of few
> long
> > > > weeks
> > > > > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Actions
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> matured enough to allow using self-hosted
> runners!
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but using them
> > have
> > > > few
> > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> advantages:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - they are Github natives
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI
> on
> > > > your
> > > > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> automatically
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like information
> > > about
> > > > > > steps
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> successes at
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which
> > > step
> > > > > > > failed).
> > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> build
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Does any of you have any experience with Github
> > > > Actions?
> > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> thoughts
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> about using it?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Tomek
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the history
> behind
> > > > > > GitLabCI
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (featuring
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can
> > > fairly
> > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> replicate
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say -
> > it
> > > > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> works, I
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the
> > > main
> > > > > > > Airflow
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> for a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am
> no
> > > > > > holidays)
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> once we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> see
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> it running and get the support for PRs from
> > GitLab
> > > > we
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> switch to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call a vote or
> just
> > > try
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> up ?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some details
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I manged to get full working builds in
> > GitLabCI
> > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> kubernetes -
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but
> > > this
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> rather easy
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> with kind (looking at it next):
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Working example here - you can take a look
> and
> > > > > compare
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> UI/how
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so
> far
> > > > (still
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> around 35
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it
> > > > further.
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> play
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got
> > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> reasonable
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> values now),
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I can use local SSD disk as Docker
> > > storage/logs/etc
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for
> > > initial
> > > > > > 24) -
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> let us build 3 builds in parallel
> independently
> > > from
> > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> other.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working
> (we
> > > > have
> > > > > > > built
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> retry
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system
> > > > failures
> > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40
> USD.
> > We
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> way
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> below
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 500 USD/month according to my
> > back-of-the-envelope
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> calculations.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Likely
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> well below
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - The current setup does not use GCR as cache
> > and
> > > > > Kaniko
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> originally planned. GCR would require custom
> > > > > > > authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet
> > > well
> > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> multi-staging
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> builds (cache does not work
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682
> > > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> updated
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reflect that.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub -
> so
> > > > that
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reliable downloads not depending on
> DockerHub's
> > > > > > stability
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (it has
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> problems
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> sometimes)
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could
> be
> > > run
> > > > in
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Kubernetes
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cluster (some optimisations like local volumes
> > > > > mounting
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> docker
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> engine
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> might have GCP-specific assumptions, but
> should
> > be
> > > > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> replicable).
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - You can take a look at the current source
> code
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - There will be some updates (I will get rid
> of
> > > > custom
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> builder
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Docker,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes
> > tests)
> > > -
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific
> variables
> > +
> > > > > > > gitlab.ci
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> yaml
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> job definitions.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on automatically
> > running
> > > > > builds
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> for PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> :).
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate
> on
> > > it:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek
> > Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> napisał:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the
> > > GitLab
> > > > CI
> > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> about
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny -
> > > director
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > Product
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Management @
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it
> quickly
> > > > > enough.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential
> complexity/Maintenance -
> > > in
> > > > > > order
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> alleviate
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think about setting
> up
> > > the
> > > > > > whole
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> system on
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to
> Travis
> > > for
> > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> time
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> (even
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it at any
> time.
> > > Then
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> able
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to tune
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases and compare
> the
> > > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> both
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> systems.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks
> and
> > I
> > > > will
> > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> sure that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with GitLab +
> Kubernetes
> > > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (from my
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> company)
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure there will
> be
> > no
> > > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> However
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is going to
> happen
> > > > while
> > > > > I
> > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> away. I
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> would also
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers who would
> like
> > to
> > > > > join
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn
> > and
> > > > see
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> it is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and how
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil
> Breguła
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve
> > other
> > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> building
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation from the
> master
> > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Currently,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD service.
> > > > > > Unfortunately,
> > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the documentation is
> not
> > > > built
> > > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another way to build
> > > > > > > documentation.
> > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ideal
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation should use
> the
> > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> environment as
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this
> > step
> > > to
> > > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> further
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that
> our
> > > > > project
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> soon
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation will also be
> > > > > available
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking
> place
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > design
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> studio
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make these websites
> > ;-)
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an environment that will
> > > allow
> > > > > you
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> build a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At best, these
> > tasks
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> combined.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to create a
> website
> > > > that
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> real
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on current
> events,
> > so
> > > > it
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> updated
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project will grow.
> If
> > > we
> > > > > now
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> problems
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the significance of these
> > > > > problems
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> future
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide
> a
> > > > stable
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> infrastructure
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another situation
> which
> > > was
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> pleasant for
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> me.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but
> because
> > > of
> > > > > > > Travis,
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> had to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wait
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would
> > > send
> > > > my
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> in a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> week,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a few hours.
> > > > Although I
> > > > > > did
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> over
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue
> is
> > > > > blocked
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Travis by
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> my
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek
> Potiuk
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where I described
> > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> architecture
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can deploy fairly
> > > quickly
> > > > -
> > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> CI
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding for GCP
> > resources.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on
> > > Proof-Of-Concept
> > > > > soon
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> before
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> start
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get some
> comments
> > > and
> > > > > > > opinions
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> on the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the basic approach
> > with
> > > my
> > > > > > > friend
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Kamil
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> who
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> works at
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this
> is
> > > > what
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short time.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details and make
> > changes
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> proposal -
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments in the
> > > document.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think about it and
> if
> > we
> > > > get
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consensus
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via
> > > lasy
> > > > > > > > consensus
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have rather quickly)
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments!
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> > > Principal
> > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <
> https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> > Principal
> > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> Principal
> > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > > > Software
> > > > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software
> > Engineer
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > > > > > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <
> tomasz.urbaszeki@polidea.com
> > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Unique Tech
> > > > > > > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> Engineer
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer
> > > > > >
> > > > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unique Tech
> > > > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > > > >
> > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Software Engineer
> > >
> > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
> > >
> > > Unique Tech
> > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > >
> >
>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Tomasz Urbaszek <tu...@apache.org>.

An additional advantage of GA + self-hosted runners is the ability to
ssh to machine and see what is going on (for example why tests timeout).

T.

On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 4:23 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Awesome Tomek, great job. Waiting for your PR eagerly :) and can't wait to
> move out of Travis.
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:54 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Just a small update:
> > - after Jarek's changes from https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6516
> > kubernetes
> >   builds started to run (proviously there was an issue with kind)
> > - I am testing self-hosted runners
> >
> > It seems that possible migration is getting closer ;)
> >
> > Bests,
> > Tomek
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:28 PM Philippe Gagnon <ph...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > We have been using Actions on the prestosql project for a little while
> > as a
> > > Travis replacement and we like it a lot.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 9:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > :(
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:35 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I started to play with self-hosted runner and... well, encountered
> > > known
> > > > > error:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.community/t5/GitHub-Actions/Github-action-stuck-at-queue/td-p/38003
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems that GA is still maturing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bests,
> > > > > Tomek
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 5:06 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah. All at once seems more than reasonable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > J.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:50 PM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agree with Daniel, let's do it all at once.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:49 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I’d rather we do it all at once and not need to maintain two
> > > > builds.
> > > > > > > > Most/all of our CI/CD is dockerized at this point so there
> > > > shouldn’t
> > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > > huge difference.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:23 AM, Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have to solve a problem with our kubernetes test but for
> your
> > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > I have never experienced a flaky
> > > > > > > > or timeouted build on Github Actions. Maybe I am lucky or
> maybe
> > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > something different.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If we agree to move to Github Actions, would we like to
> migrate
> > > > > > > > incrementally or fully?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No problem on that side - Tomek is using the same scripts
> we
> > > have
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > > (and they generally work - I think the last step is to make
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > tests pass. We have still a number of dependencies between
> > > tests
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > environmental flakiness so that some tests consistently
> fail
> > in
> > > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > > Actions where they did not fail in Travis. From latest try
> by
> > > > Tomek
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > looks like we are 1 test to go (plus some cleanup/setup of
> > > > project
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > making sure all is stable):
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ==== 1 failed, 4030 passed, 119 skipped, 16 warnings in
> > > 1207.96s
> > > > > > > > (0:20:07)
> > > > > > > > > =====
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We discussed with Tomek and Kamil that in order to speed it
> > up
> > > we
> > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > want to run our own workers on the GCP account we have -
> just
> > > to
> > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > quickly how much we can optimise it and I am inclined to
> > agree.
> > > > If
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > this way, the transition might be rather fast.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If we want to use auto-scalable GKE cluster as we
> originally
> > > > > planned
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > might take more time to setup (similar setup to what I
> tried
> > > with
> > > > > > > > GitLab).
> > > > > > > > > There we might need to use docker-in-docker to build the CI
> > > image
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > latest as first step of build and then use that built image
> > by
> > > > all
> > > > > > > > > subsequent steps. But we can do it as the next step -
> > > optimising
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > experience.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > J.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > > > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +1 on my end as well.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > @jarek does this affect anything involving breeze? Do
> > GitHub
> > > > > > actions
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > an easy docker/docker-compose based workflow?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > via Newton Mail [
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2
> > > > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:28 AM, Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> > > > > ash@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Legal: no I don't think so.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there to run things
> > on
> > > > our
> > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > "hardware" -
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > needs someone with Admin rights to create, and I don't
> see
> > > the
> > > > > > > Settings
> > > > > > > > > tab
> > > > > > > > > > at all.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -ash
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <
> > > xd.deng.r@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it for months
> > for
> > > my
> > > > > > side
> > > > > > > > > > > projects, and it’s working very well. I believe most of
> > us
> > > > are
> > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > > tired
> > > > > > > > > > > of the waiting time using Travis CI.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The only point I would like to remind is whether we
> need
> > to
> > > > > > > > communicate
> > > > > > > > > > > with Infra/Legal team for this.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > XD
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <
> > > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> +1 for Github actions
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> > > > ash@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI
> > > > > experience -
> > > > > > > > > faster
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >>> good too!
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> -a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat
> > kyzy <
> > > > > > > > > > >>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful
> so
> > > far
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> recently it
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> seems that running PRs from forks will only be run
> in
> > > > > > > Enterrprise
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Edition,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit
> > > disappointed
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> pace and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better
> > > choice -
> > > > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> they are closely integrated with Github repo and
> seem
> > > to
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which
> > makes
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > possible
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> for us
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to optimise the experience.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed using other CI
> > > than
> > > > > > > Travis.
> > > > > > > > > One
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its
> > > > ability
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> on
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long
> > > weeks
> > > > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Actions
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but using them
> have
> > > few
> > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> advantages:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - they are Github natives
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on
> > > your
> > > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> automatically
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like information
> > about
> > > > > steps
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> successes at
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which
> > step
> > > > > > failed).
> > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> build
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Does any of you have any experience with Github
> > > Actions?
> > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> thoughts
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> about using it?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Tomek
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the history behind
> > > > > GitLabCI
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> (featuring
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can
> > fairly
> > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> replicate
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say -
> it
> > > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> works, I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the
> > main
> > > > > > Airflow
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> for a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no
> > > > > holidays)
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> once we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> see
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> it running and get the support for PRs from
> GitLab
> > > we
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> switch to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just
> > try
> > > > to
> > > > > > set
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> up ?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some details
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I manged to get full working builds in
> GitLabCI
> > +
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> kubernetes -
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but
> > this
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> rather easy
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> with kind (looking at it next):
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Working example here - you can take a look and
> > > > compare
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> UI/how
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far
> > > (still
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> around 35
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it
> > > further.
> > > > I
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> play
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got
> > some
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> reasonable
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> values now),
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I can use local SSD disk as Docker
> > storage/logs/etc
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for
> > initial
> > > > > 24) -
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> let us build 3 builds in parallel independently
> > from
> > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> other.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we
> > > have
> > > > > > built
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> retry
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system
> > > failures
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD.
> We
> > > > > should
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> way
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> below
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 500 USD/month according to my
> back-of-the-envelope
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> calculations.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Likely
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> well below
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - The current setup does not use GCR as cache
> and
> > > > Kaniko
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> originally planned. GCR would require custom
> > > > > > authentication
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> (and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet
> > well
> > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> multi-staging
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> builds (cache does not work
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682
> > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> updated
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reflect that.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so
> > > that
> > > > we
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's
> > > > > stability
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> (it has
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> problems
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> sometimes)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be
> > run
> > > in
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Kubernetes
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cluster (some optimisations like local volumes
> > > > mounting
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> docker
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> engine
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should
> be
> > > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> replicable).
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - You can take a look at the current source code
> > in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - There will be some updates (I will get rid of
> > > custom
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> builder
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Docker,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes
> tests)
> > -
> > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> mostly
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables
> +
> > > > > > gitlab.ci
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> yaml
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> job definitions.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on automatically
> running
> > > > builds
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> for PRs
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> :).
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on
> > it:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek
> Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> napisał:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the
> > GitLab
> > > CI
> > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> about
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> PRs
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny -
> > director
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > Product
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Management @
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly
> > > > enough.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance -
> > in
> > > > > order
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> alleviate
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up
> > the
> > > > > whole
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> system on
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis
> > for
> > > > > quite
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> time
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> (even
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it at any time.
> > Then
> > > > we
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> able
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to tune
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases and compare the
> > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> both
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> systems.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and
> I
> > > will
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> sure that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes
> > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> (from my
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> company)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure there will be
> no
> > > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> However
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen
> > > while
> > > > I
> > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> away. I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> would also
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers who would like
> to
> > > > join
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn
> and
> > > see
> > > > > how
> > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> it is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and how
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła
> <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve
> other
> > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> building
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation from the master
> > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Currently,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD service.
> > > > > Unfortunately,
> > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the documentation is not
> > > built
> > > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another way to build
> > > > > > documentation.
> > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ideal
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation should use the
> > same
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> environment as
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this
> step
> > to
> > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> further
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our
> > > > project
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> soon
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation will also be
> > > > available
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > design
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> studio
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make these websites
> ;-)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an environment that will
> > allow
> > > > you
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> build a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At best, these
> tasks
> > > > > should
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> combined.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to create a website
> > > that
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> real
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on current events,
> so
> > > it
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> updated
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If
> > we
> > > > now
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> problems
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the significance of these
> > > > problems
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> future
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a
> > > stable
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> infrastructure
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another situation which
> > was
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> pleasant for
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> me.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because
> > of
> > > > > > Travis,
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> had to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wait
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would
> > send
> > > my
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> in a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> week,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a few hours.
> > > Although I
> > > > > did
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> over
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is
> > > > blocked
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Travis by
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> my
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk
> <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where I described
> > > general
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> architecture
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can deploy fairly
> > quickly
> > > -
> > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> CI
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding for GCP
> resources.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on
> > Proof-Of-Concept
> > > > soon
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> before
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> start
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get some comments
> > and
> > > > > > opinions
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> on the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the basic approach
> with
> > my
> > > > > > friend
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Kamil
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> who
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> works at
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is
> > > what
> > > > we
> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short time.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details and make
> changes
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> proposal -
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments in the
> > document.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think about it and if
> we
> > > get
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consensus
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via
> > lasy
> > > > > > > consensus
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have rather quickly)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments!
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> > Principal
> > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> Principal
> > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > > > Software
> > > > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > > Software
> > > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software
> Engineer
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > > > > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <tomasz.urbaszeki@polidea.com
> >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unique Tech
> > > > > > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > > > > >
> > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer
> > > > >
> > > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Unique Tech
> > > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > > >
> > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Software Engineer
> >
> > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
> >
> > Unique Tech
> > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> >
>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>.

Awesome Tomek, great job. Waiting for your PR eagerly :) and can't wait to
move out of Travis.

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:54 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <to...@polidea.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Just a small update:
> - after Jarek's changes from https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6516
> kubernetes
>   builds started to run (proviously there was an issue with kind)
> - I am testing self-hosted runners
>
> It seems that possible migration is getting closer ;)
>
> Bests,
> Tomek
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:28 PM Philippe Gagnon <ph...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > We have been using Actions on the prestosql project for a little while
> as a
> > Travis replacement and we like it a lot.
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 9:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > :(
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:35 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I started to play with self-hosted runner and... well, encountered
> > known
> > > > error:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.community/t5/GitHub-Actions/Github-action-stuck-at-queue/td-p/38003
> > > >
> > > > It seems that GA is still maturing.
> > > >
> > > > Bests,
> > > > Tomek
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 5:06 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yeah. All at once seems more than reasonable.
> > > > >
> > > > > J.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:50 PM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Agree with Daniel, let's do it all at once.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:49 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I’d rather we do it all at once and not need to maintain two
> > > builds.
> > > > > > > Most/all of our CI/CD is dockerized at this point so there
> > > shouldn’t
> > > > > be a
> > > > > > > huge difference.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:23 AM, Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have to solve a problem with our kubernetes test but for your
> > > > > > information
> > > > > > > I have never experienced a flaky
> > > > > > > or timeouted build on Github Actions. Maybe I am lucky or maybe
> > > > there's
> > > > > > > something different.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If we agree to move to Github Actions, would we like to migrate
> > > > > > > incrementally or fully?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No problem on that side - Tomek is using the same scripts we
> > have
> > > > on
> > > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > > (and they generally work - I think the last step is to make
> all
> > > the
> > > > > > > > tests pass. We have still a number of dependencies between
> > tests
> > > > and
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > environmental flakiness so that some tests consistently fail
> in
> > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > Actions where they did not fail in Travis. From latest try by
> > > Tomek
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > looks like we are 1 test to go (plus some cleanup/setup of
> > > project
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > making sure all is stable):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ==== 1 failed, 4030 passed, 119 skipped, 16 warnings in
> > 1207.96s
> > > > > > > (0:20:07)
> > > > > > > > =====
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We discussed with Tomek and Kamil that in order to speed it
> up
> > we
> > > > > might
> > > > > > > > want to run our own workers on the GCP account we have - just
> > to
> > > > test
> > > > > > > > quickly how much we can optimise it and I am inclined to
> agree.
> > > If
> > > > we
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > this way, the transition might be rather fast.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If we want to use auto-scalable GKE cluster as we originally
> > > > planned
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > might take more time to setup (similar setup to what I tried
> > with
> > > > > > > GitLab).
> > > > > > > > There we might need to use docker-in-docker to build the CI
> > image
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > latest as first step of build and then use that built image
> by
> > > all
> > > > > > > > subsequent steps. But we can do it as the next step -
> > optimising
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > experience.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > J.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1 on my end as well.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > @jarek does this affect anything involving breeze? Do
> GitHub
> > > > > actions
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > an easy docker/docker-compose based workflow?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > via Newton Mail [
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2
> > > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:28 AM, Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> > > > ash@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Legal: no I don't think so.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there to run things
> on
> > > our
> > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > "hardware" -
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > needs someone with Admin rights to create, and I don't see
> > the
> > > > > > Settings
> > > > > > > > tab
> > > > > > > > > at all.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -ash
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <
> > xd.deng.r@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it for months
> for
> > my
> > > > > side
> > > > > > > > > > projects, and it’s working very well. I believe most of
> us
> > > are
> > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > tired
> > > > > > > > > > of the waiting time using Travis CI.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The only point I would like to remind is whether we need
> to
> > > > > > > communicate
> > > > > > > > > > with Infra/Legal team for this.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > XD
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <
> > > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> +1 for Github actions
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> > > ash@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI
> > > > experience -
> > > > > > > > faster
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >>> good too!
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> -a
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat
> kyzy <
> > > > > > > > > >>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so
> > far
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >>>> recently it
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in
> > > > > > Enterrprise
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Edition,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit
> > disappointed
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> pace and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better
> > choice -
> > > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem
> > to
> > > > get
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which
> makes
> > > it
> > > > > > > possible
> > > > > > > > > >>>> for us
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> to optimise the experience.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed using other CI
> > than
> > > > > > Travis.
> > > > > > > > One
> > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its
> > > ability
> > > > to
> > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > >>>> on
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long
> > weeks
> > > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Actions
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but using them have
> > few
> > > > big
> > > > > > > > > >>>> advantages:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - they are Github natives
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on
> > your
> > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> automatically
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like information
> about
> > > > steps
> > > > > > > > > >>>> successes at
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which
> step
> > > > > failed).
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > >>>> build
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Does any of you have any experience with Github
> > Actions?
> > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > >>>> thoughts
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> about using it?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Tomek
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the history behind
> > > > GitLabCI
> > > > > > > > > >>>> (featuring
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > >>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can
> fairly
> > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > >>>> replicate
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it
> > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > >>>> works, I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the
> main
> > > > > Airflow
> > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> for a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no
> > > > holidays)
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >>>> once we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> see
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > > > > > >>>> switch to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> it.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just
> try
> > > to
> > > > > set
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >>>> up ?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some details
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI
> +
> > > > > > > > > >>>> kubernetes -
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but
> this
> > > > should
> > > > > > > > > >>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> rather easy
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> with kind (looking at it next):
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Working example here - you can take a look and
> > > compare
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> UI/how
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far
> > (still
> > > > > > > > > >>>> around 35
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it
> > further.
> > > I
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > >>>> play
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got
> some
> > > > > > > > > >>>> reasonable
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> values now),
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I can use local SSD disk as Docker
> storage/logs/etc
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for
> initial
> > > > 24) -
> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> let us build 3 builds in parallel independently
> from
> > > > each
> > > > > > > > > >>>> other.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we
> > have
> > > > > built
> > > > > > > > > >>>> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> retry
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system
> > failures
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We
> > > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>> way
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> below
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope
> > > > > > > > > >>>> calculations.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Likely
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> well below
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and
> > > Kaniko
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> originally planned. GCR would require custom
> > > > > authentication
> > > > > > > > > >>>> (and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet
> well
> > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> multi-staging
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> builds (cache does not work
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682
> > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> updated
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reflect that.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so
> > that
> > > we
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > >>>> have
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's
> > > > stability
> > > > > > > > > >>>> (it has
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> problems
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> sometimes)
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be
> run
> > in
> > > > any
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Kubernetes
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cluster (some optimisations like local volumes
> > > mounting
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >>>> docker
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> engine
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be
> > > > > generally
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> replicable).
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - You can take a look at the current source code
> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - There will be some updates (I will get rid of
> > custom
> > > > > > > > > >>>> builder
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Docker,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests)
> -
> > > it's
> > > > > > > > > >>>> mostly
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables +
> > > > > gitlab.ci
> > > > > > > > > >>>> yaml
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> job definitions.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on automatically running
> > > builds
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > >>>> for PRs
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> :).
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on
> it:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> napisał:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the
> GitLab
> > CI
> > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > >>>> about
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> PRs
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny -
> director
> > > of
> > > > > > > Product
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Management @
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly
> > > enough.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance -
> in
> > > > order
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> alleviate
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up
> the
> > > > whole
> > > > > > > > > >>>> system on
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis
> for
> > > > quite
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > >>>> time
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> (even
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it at any time.
> Then
> > > we
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>> able
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to tune
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases and compare the
> > > > > experience
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >>>> both
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> systems.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I
> > will
> > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > >>>> sure that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes
> > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > > >>>> (from my
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> company)
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure there will be no
> > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> However
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen
> > while
> > > I
> > > > am
> > > > > > > > > >>>> away. I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> would also
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers who would like to
> > > join
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and
> > see
> > > > how
> > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > >>>> it is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and how
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other
> > > > > problems
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> building
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation from the master
> > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Currently,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD service.
> > > > Unfortunately,
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the documentation is not
> > built
> > > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another way to build
> > > > > documentation.
> > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ideal
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation should use the
> same
> > > > > > > > > >>>> environment as
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step
> to
> > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> further
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our
> > > project
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > >>>> soon
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation will also be
> > > available
> > > > in
> > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > > design
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> studio
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an environment that will
> allow
> > > you
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>> build a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks
> > > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> combined.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to create a website
> > that
> > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >>>> real
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on current events, so
> > it
> > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>> updated
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If
> we
> > > now
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > >>>> problems
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the significance of these
> > > problems
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> future
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a
> > stable
> > > > > > > > > >>>> infrastructure
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another situation which
> was
> > > not
> > > > > > > > > >>>> pleasant for
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> me.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because
> of
> > > > > Travis,
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > >>>> had to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wait
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would
> send
> > my
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > >>>> in a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> week,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a few hours.
> > Although I
> > > > did
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >>>> over
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is
> > > blocked
> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Travis by
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> my
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where I described
> > general
> > > > > > > > > >>>> architecture
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can deploy fairly
> quickly
> > -
> > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > >>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> CI
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on
> Proof-Of-Concept
> > > soon
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > >>>> before
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> start
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get some comments
> and
> > > > > opinions
> > > > > > > > > >>>> on the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the basic approach with
> my
> > > > > friend
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Kamil
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> who
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> works at
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is
> > what
> > > we
> > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short time.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details and make changes
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> proposal -
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments in the
> document.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think about it and if we
> > get
> > > > to
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consensus
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via
> lasy
> > > > > > consensus
> > > > > > > > > >>>> as
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have rather quickly)
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments!
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> |
> Principal
> > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > > > Software
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > > Software
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > > Software
> > > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > Software
> > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > Engineer
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > > > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unique Tech
> > > > > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > > > >
> > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer
> > > >
> > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
> > > >
> > > > Unique Tech
> > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >
> > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Tomasz Urbaszek
> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Software Engineer
>
> M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
>
> Unique Tech
> Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Tomasz Urbaszek <to...@polidea.com>.

Hi all,

Just a small update:
- after Jarek's changes from https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6516
kubernetes
  builds started to run (proviously there was an issue with kind)
- I am testing self-hosted runners

It seems that possible migration is getting closer ;)

Bests,
Tomek

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:28 PM Philippe Gagnon <ph...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> We have been using Actions on the prestosql project for a little while as a
> Travis replacement and we like it a lot.
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 9:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> wrote:
>
> > :(
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:35 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I started to play with self-hosted runner and... well, encountered
> known
> > > error:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.community/t5/GitHub-Actions/Github-action-stuck-at-queue/td-p/38003
> > >
> > > It seems that GA is still maturing.
> > >
> > > Bests,
> > > Tomek
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 5:06 PM Jarek Potiuk <Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yeah. All at once seems more than reasonable.
> > > >
> > > > J.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:50 PM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Agree with Daniel, let's do it all at once.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:49 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I’d rather we do it all at once and not need to maintain two
> > builds.
> > > > > > Most/all of our CI/CD is dockerized at this point so there
> > shouldn’t
> > > > be a
> > > > > > huge difference.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:23 AM, Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have to solve a problem with our kubernetes test but for your
> > > > > information
> > > > > > I have never experienced a flaky
> > > > > > or timeouted build on Github Actions. Maybe I am lucky or maybe
> > > there's
> > > > > > something different.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we agree to move to Github Actions, would we like to migrate
> > > > > > incrementally or fully?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bests,
> > > > > > Tomek
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > No problem on that side - Tomek is using the same scripts we
> have
> > > on
> > > > > > Travis
> > > > > > > (and they generally work - I think the last step is to make all
> > the
> > > > > > > tests pass. We have still a number of dependencies between
> tests
> > > and
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > environmental flakiness so that some tests consistently fail in
> > > > Github
> > > > > > > Actions where they did not fail in Travis. From latest try by
> > Tomek
> > > > it
> > > > > > > looks like we are 1 test to go (plus some cleanup/setup of
> > project
> > > > and
> > > > > > > making sure all is stable):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ==== 1 failed, 4030 passed, 119 skipped, 16 warnings in
> 1207.96s
> > > > > > (0:20:07)
> > > > > > > =====
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We discussed with Tomek and Kamil that in order to speed it up
> we
> > > > might
> > > > > > > want to run our own workers on the GCP account we have - just
> to
> > > test
> > > > > > > quickly how much we can optimise it and I am inclined to agree.
> > If
> > > we
> > > > > do
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > this way, the transition might be rather fast.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If we want to use auto-scalable GKE cluster as we originally
> > > planned
> > > > it
> > > > > > > might take more time to setup (similar setup to what I tried
> with
> > > > > > GitLab).
> > > > > > > There we might need to use docker-in-docker to build the CI
> image
> > > > with
> > > > > > > latest as first step of build and then use that built image by
> > all
> > > > > > > subsequent steps. But we can do it as the next step -
> optimising
> > > the
> > > > > > > experience.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > J.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1 on my end as well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > @jarek does this affect anything involving breeze? Do GitHub
> > > > actions
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > an easy docker/docker-compose based workflow?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > via Newton Mail [
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2
> > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:28 AM, Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> > > ash@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Legal: no I don't think so.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there to run things on
> > our
> > > > own
> > > > > > > > "hardware" -
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > needs someone with Admin rights to create, and I don't see
> the
> > > > > Settings
> > > > > > > tab
> > > > > > > > at all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -ash
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <
> xd.deng.r@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it for months for
> my
> > > > side
> > > > > > > > > projects, and it’s working very well. I believe most of us
> > are
> > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > tired
> > > > > > > > > of the waiting time using Travis CI.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The only point I would like to remind is whether we need to
> > > > > > communicate
> > > > > > > > > with Infra/Legal team for this.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > XD
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <
> > kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> +1 for Github actions
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> > ash@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI
> > > experience -
> > > > > > > faster
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >>> good too!
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> -a
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
> > > > > > > > >>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so
> far
> > > and
> > > > > > > > >>>> recently it
> > > > > > > > >>>>> seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in
> > > > > Enterrprise
> > > > > > > > >>>> Edition,
> > > > > > > > >>>>> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit
> disappointed
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> pace and
> > > > > > > > >>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better
> choice -
> > > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > >>>>> they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem
> to
> > > get
> > > > > > > > >>>>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which makes
> > it
> > > > > > possible
> > > > > > > > >>>> for us
> > > > > > > > >>>>> to optimise the experience.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > > >>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed using other CI
> than
> > > > > Travis.
> > > > > > > One
> > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its
> > ability
> > > to
> > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > >>>> on
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long
> weeks
> > > > > Github
> > > > > > > > >>>> Actions
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but using them have
> few
> > > big
> > > > > > > > >>>> advantages:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> - they are Github natives
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on
> your
> > > fork
> > > > > > > > >>>>> automatically
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like information about
> > > steps
> > > > > > > > >>>> successes at
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step
> > > > failed).
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > >>>> build
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Does any of you have any experience with Github
> Actions?
> > > Any
> > > > > > > > >>>> thoughts
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> about using it?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Tomek
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the history behind
> > > GitLabCI
> > > > > > > > >>>> (featuring
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > >>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly
> > > easily
> > > > > > > > >>>> replicate
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it
> > > > generally
> > > > > > > > >>>> works, I
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main
> > > > Airflow
> > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> for a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no
> > > holidays)
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >>>> once we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> see
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab
> we
> > > can
> > > > > > > > >>>> switch to
> > > > > > > > >>>>> it.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try
> > to
> > > > set
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >>>> up ?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some details
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI +
> > > > > > > > >>>> kubernetes -
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this
> > > should
> > > > > > > > >>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> rather easy
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> with kind (looking at it next):
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Working example here - you can take a look and
> > compare
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>>> UI/how
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far
> (still
> > > > > > > > >>>> around 35
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it
> further.
> > I
> > > > can
> > > > > > > > >>>> play
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some
> > > > > > > > >>>> reasonable
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> values now),
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial
> > > 24) -
> > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from
> > > each
> > > > > > > > >>>> other.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we
> have
> > > > built
> > > > > > > > >>>> in
> > > > > > > > >>>>> retry
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system
> failures
> > > > like
> > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We
> > > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>> way
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> below
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope
> > > > > > > > >>>> calculations.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Likely
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> well below
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and
> > Kaniko
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> originally planned. GCR would require custom
> > > > authentication
> > > > > > > > >>>> (and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well
> > > handle
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> multi-staging
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> builds (cache does not work
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682
> > > > ).
> > > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> updated
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reflect that.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so
> that
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > > > > >>>> have
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's
> > > stability
> > > > > > > > >>>> (it has
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> problems
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> sometimes)
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run
> in
> > > any
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Kubernetes
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cluster (some optimisations like local volumes
> > mounting
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > >>>> docker
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> engine
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be
> > > > generally
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> replicable).
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - You can take a look at the current source code in
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - There will be some updates (I will get rid of
> custom
> > > > > > > > >>>> builder
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Docker,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) -
> > it's
> > > > > > > > >>>> mostly
> > > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables +
> > > > gitlab.ci
> > > > > > > > >>>> yaml
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> job definitions.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on automatically running
> > builds
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > >>>> for PRs
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> :).
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> napisał:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab
> CI
> > > > issue
> > > > > > > > >>>> about
> > > > > > > > >>>>> PRs
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director
> > of
> > > > > > Product
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Management @
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly
> > enough.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in
> > > order
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>>> alleviate
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> any
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the
> > > whole
> > > > > > > > >>>> system on
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for
> > > quite
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > >>>> time
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> (even
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then
> > we
> > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>> able
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> to tune
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases and compare the
> > > > experience
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >>>> both
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> systems.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I
> will
> > > > make
> > > > > > > > >>>> sure that
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes
> > > > experience
> > > > > > > > >>>> (from my
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> company)
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure there will be no
> > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > >>>> However
> > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen
> while
> > I
> > > am
> > > > > > > > >>>> away. I
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> would also
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers who would like to
> > join
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and
> see
> > > how
> > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > >>>> it is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> and how
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other
> > > > problems
> > > > > -
> > > > > > > > >>>>> building
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation from the master
> > branch.
> > > > > > > > >>>> Currently,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD service.
> > > Unfortunately,
> > > > > our
> > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the documentation is not
> built
> > > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another way to build
> > > > documentation.
> > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> ideal
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation should use the same
> > > > > > > > >>>> environment as
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to
> > > > Travis
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > >>>>> further
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our
> > project
> > > > will
> > > > > > > > >>>> soon
> > > > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation will also be
> > available
> > > in
> > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with
> > the
> > > > > > design
> > > > > > > > >>>>> studio
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an environment that will allow
> > you
> > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>> build a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks
> > > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>>> combined.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to create a website
> that
> > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >>>> real
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on current events, so
> it
> > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>> updated
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we
> > now
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > >>>> problems
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the significance of these
> > problems
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> future
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a
> stable
> > > > > > > > >>>> infrastructure
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> for
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another situation which was
> > not
> > > > > > > > >>>> pleasant for
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> me.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of
> > > > Travis,
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >>>> had to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> wait
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send
> my
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > >>>> in a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> week,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a few hours.
> Although I
> > > did
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >>>> over
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is
> > blocked
> > > on
> > > > > > > > >>>> Travis by
> > > > > > > > >>>>> my
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where I described
> general
> > > > > > > > >>>> architecture
> > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly
> -
> > > > having
> > > > > > > > >>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > > >>>>> CI
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept
> > soon
> > > > but
> > > > > > > > >>>> before
> > > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> start
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get some comments and
> > > > opinions
> > > > > > > > >>>> on the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the basic approach with my
> > > > friend
> > > > > > > > >>>> Kamil
> > > > > > > > >>>>> who
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> works at
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is
> what
> > we
> > > > > think
> > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short time.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details and make changes
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> proposal -
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments in the document.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think about it and if we
> get
> > > to
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> consensus
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy
> > > > > consensus
> > > > > > > > >>>> as
> > > > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have rather quickly)
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments!
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > > > Software
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > > Software
> > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > Software
> > > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > Software
> > > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> Software
> > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> <+48660796129
> > > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> Engineer
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer
> > > > > >
> > > > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unique Tech
> > > > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > > >
> > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer
> > >
> > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
> > >
> > > Unique Tech
> > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Jarek Potiuk
> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> >
> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> >
>


-- 

Tomasz Urbaszek
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Software Engineer

M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>

Unique Tech
Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Philippe Gagnon <ph...@gmail.com>.

We have been using Actions on the prestosql project for a little while as a
Travis replacement and we like it a lot.

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 9:08 AM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
wrote:

> :(
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:35 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I started to play with self-hosted runner and... well, encountered known
> > error:
> >
> >
> https://github.community/t5/GitHub-Actions/Github-action-stuck-at-queue/td-p/38003
> >
> > It seems that GA is still maturing.
> >
> > Bests,
> > Tomek
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 5:06 PM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah. All at once seems more than reasonable.
> > >
> > > J.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:50 PM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Agree with Daniel, let's do it all at once.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:49 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I’d rather we do it all at once and not need to maintain two
> builds.
> > > > > Most/all of our CI/CD is dockerized at this point so there
> shouldn’t
> > > be a
> > > > > huge difference.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:23 AM, Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to solve a problem with our kubernetes test but for your
> > > > information
> > > > > I have never experienced a flaky
> > > > > or timeouted build on Github Actions. Maybe I am lucky or maybe
> > there's
> > > > > something different.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we agree to move to Github Actions, would we like to migrate
> > > > > incrementally or fully?
> > > > >
> > > > > Bests,
> > > > > Tomek
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > No problem on that side - Tomek is using the same scripts we have
> > on
> > > > > Travis
> > > > > > (and they generally work - I think the last step is to make all
> the
> > > > > > tests pass. We have still a number of dependencies between tests
> > and
> > > > some
> > > > > > environmental flakiness so that some tests consistently fail in
> > > Github
> > > > > > Actions where they did not fail in Travis. From latest try by
> Tomek
> > > it
> > > > > > looks like we are 1 test to go (plus some cleanup/setup of
> project
> > > and
> > > > > > making sure all is stable):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ==== 1 failed, 4030 passed, 119 skipped, 16 warnings in 1207.96s
> > > > > (0:20:07)
> > > > > > =====
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We discussed with Tomek and Kamil that in order to speed it up we
> > > might
> > > > > > want to run our own workers on the GCP account we have - just to
> > test
> > > > > > quickly how much we can optimise it and I am inclined to agree.
> If
> > we
> > > > do
> > > > > it
> > > > > > this way, the transition might be rather fast.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we want to use auto-scalable GKE cluster as we originally
> > planned
> > > it
> > > > > > might take more time to setup (similar setup to what I tried with
> > > > > GitLab).
> > > > > > There we might need to use docker-in-docker to build the CI image
> > > with
> > > > > > latest as first step of build and then use that built image by
> all
> > > > > > subsequent steps. But we can do it as the next step - optimising
> > the
> > > > > > experience.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > J.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 on my end as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > @jarek does this affect anything involving breeze? Do GitHub
> > > actions
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > an easy docker/docker-compose based workflow?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > via Newton Mail [
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2
> > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:28 AM, Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> > ash@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Legal: no I don't think so.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there to run things on
> our
> > > own
> > > > > > > "hardware" -
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > needs someone with Admin rights to create, and I don't see the
> > > > Settings
> > > > > > tab
> > > > > > > at all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -ash
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <xd.deng.r@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it for months for my
> > > side
> > > > > > > > projects, and it’s working very well. I believe most of us
> are
> > > > quite
> > > > > > > tired
> > > > > > > > of the waiting time using Travis CI.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The only point I would like to remind is whether we need to
> > > > > communicate
> > > > > > > > with Infra/Legal team for this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > XD
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <
> kaxilnaik@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> +1 for Github actions
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> ash@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI
> > experience -
> > > > > > faster
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >>> good too!
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> -a
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
> > > > > > > >>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so far
> > and
> > > > > > > >>>> recently it
> > > > > > > >>>>> seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in
> > > > Enterrprise
> > > > > > > >>>> Edition,
> > > > > > > >>>>> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit disappointed
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> pace and
> > > > > > > >>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better choice -
> > > > > > especially
> > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > >>>>> they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem to
> > get
> > > > > > > >>>>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which makes
> it
> > > > > possible
> > > > > > > >>>> for us
> > > > > > > >>>>> to optimise the experience.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > > >>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than
> > > > Travis.
> > > > > > One
> > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its
> ability
> > to
> > > > > work
> > > > > > > >>>> on
> > > > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks
> > > > Github
> > > > > > > >>>> Actions
> > > > > > > >>>>>> matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but using them have few
> > big
> > > > > > > >>>> advantages:
> > > > > > > >>>>>> - they are Github natives
> > > > > > > >>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your
> > fork
> > > > > > > >>>>> automatically
> > > > > > > >>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > > > > > > >>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like information about
> > steps
> > > > > > > >>>> successes at
> > > > > > > >>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step
> > > failed).
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > >>>> build
> > > > > > > >>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions?
> > Any
> > > > > > > >>>> thoughts
> > > > > > > >>>>>> about using it?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Tomek
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the history behind
> > GitLabCI
> > > > > > > >>>> (featuring
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > >>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly
> > easily
> > > > > > > >>>> replicate
> > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it
> > > generally
> > > > > > > >>>> works, I
> > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main
> > > Airflow
> > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > >>>>>> for a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no
> > holidays)
> > > > and
> > > > > > > >>>> once we
> > > > > > > >>>>>> see
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we
> > can
> > > > > > > >>>> switch to
> > > > > > > >>>>> it.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try
> to
> > > set
> > > > it
> > > > > > > >>>> up ?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some details
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI +
> > > > > > > >>>> kubernetes -
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this
> > should
> > > > > > > >>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>> rather easy
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> with kind (looking at it next):
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Working example here - you can take a look and
> compare
> > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>> UI/how
> > > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still
> > > > > > > >>>> around 35
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further.
> I
> > > can
> > > > > > > >>>> play
> > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some
> > > > > > > >>>> reasonable
> > > > > > > >>>>>> values now),
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial
> > 24) -
> > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from
> > each
> > > > > > > >>>> other.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have
> > > built
> > > > > > > >>>> in
> > > > > > > >>>>> retry
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures
> > > like
> > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We
> > should
> > > be
> > > > > > > >>>> way
> > > > > > > >>>>>> below
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope
> > > > > > > >>>> calculations.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Likely
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> well below
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and
> Kaniko
> > > as
> > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> originally planned. GCR would require custom
> > > authentication
> > > > > > > >>>> (and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well
> > handle
> > > > > > > >>>>>> multi-staging
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> builds (cache does not work
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682
> > > ).
> > > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > > >>>>>> updated
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reflect that.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that
> we
> > > can
> > > > > > > >>>> have
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's
> > stability
> > > > > > > >>>> (it has
> > > > > > > >>>>>> problems
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> sometimes)
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in
> > any
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Kubernetes
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cluster (some optimisations like local volumes
> mounting
> > > for
> > > > > > > >>>> docker
> > > > > > > >>>>>> engine
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be
> > > generally
> > > > > > > >>>>>> replicable).
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - You can take a look at the current source code in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom
> > > > > > > >>>> builder
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Docker,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) -
> it's
> > > > > > > >>>> mostly
> > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables +
> > > gitlab.ci
> > > > > > > >>>> yaml
> > > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> job definitions.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on automatically running
> builds
> > > > from
> > > > > > > >>>> for PRs
> > > > > > > >>>>>> :).
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> napisał:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI
> > > issue
> > > > > > > >>>> about
> > > > > > > >>>>> PRs
> > > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director
> of
> > > > > Product
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Management @
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly
> enough.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in
> > order
> > > to
> > > > > > > >>>>> alleviate
> > > > > > > >>>>>> any
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the
> > whole
> > > > > > > >>>> system on
> > > > > > > >>>>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for
> > quite
> > > > some
> > > > > > > >>>> time
> > > > > > > >>>>>> (even
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then
> we
> > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >>>> able
> > > > > > > >>>>>> to tune
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases and compare the
> > > experience
> > > > of
> > > > > > > >>>> both
> > > > > > > >>>>>> systems.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will
> > > make
> > > > > > > >>>> sure that
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes
> > > experience
> > > > > > > >>>> (from my
> > > > > > > >>>>>> company)
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure there will be no
> > > problems.
> > > > > > > >>>> However
> > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while
> I
> > am
> > > > > > > >>>> away. I
> > > > > > > >>>>>> would also
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers who would like to
> join
> > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see
> > how
> > > > easy
> > > > > > > >>>> it is
> > > > > > > >>>>>> and how
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
> > > > > > > >>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other
> > > problems
> > > > -
> > > > > > > >>>>> building
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation from the master
> branch.
> > > > > > > >>>> Currently,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD service.
> > Unfortunately,
> > > > our
> > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the documentation is not built
> > > > > properly.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another way to build
> > > documentation.
> > > > > In
> > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> ideal
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation should use the same
> > > > > > > >>>> environment as
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to
> > > Travis
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > >>>>> further
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >
> > > https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our
> project
> > > will
> > > > > > > >>>> soon
> > > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation will also be
> available
> > in
> > > > > many
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with
> the
> > > > > design
> > > > > > > >>>>> studio
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an environment that will allow
> you
> > to
> > > > > > > >>>> build a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks
> > should
> > > be
> > > > > > > >>>>> combined.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that
> > will
> > > > be
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > >>>> real
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on current events, so it
> > will
> > > > be
> > > > > > > >>>> updated
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we
> now
> > > have
> > > > > > > >>>> problems
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the significance of these
> problems
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> future
> > > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable
> > > > > > > >>>> infrastructure
> > > > > > > >>>>>> for
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another situation which was
> not
> > > > > > > >>>> pleasant for
> > > > > > > >>>>>> me.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of
> > > Travis,
> > > > I
> > > > > > > >>>> had to
> > > > > > > >>>>>> wait
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my
> > > > changes
> > > > > > > >>>> in a
> > > > > > > >>>>>> week,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I
> > did
> > > > it
> > > > > > > >>>> over
> > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is
> blocked
> > on
> > > > > > > >>>> Travis by
> > > > > > > >>>>> my
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where I described general
> > > > > > > >>>> architecture
> > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly -
> > > having
> > > > > > > >>>> GitLab
> > > > > > > >>>>> CI
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept
> soon
> > > but
> > > > > > > >>>> before
> > > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> start
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get some comments and
> > > opinions
> > > > > > > >>>> on the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the basic approach with my
> > > friend
> > > > > > > >>>> Kamil
> > > > > > > >>>>> who
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> works at
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what
> we
> > > > think
> > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short time.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details and make changes to
> > the
> > > > > > > >>>> proposal -
> > > > > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments in the document.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think about it and if we get
> > to
> > > > some
> > > > > > > >>>>>> consensus
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy
> > > > consensus
> > > > > > > >>>> as
> > > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have rather quickly)
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments!
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > > Software
> > > > > > > >>>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > Software
> > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > <+48660796129
> > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> Software
> > > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> <+48660796129
> > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> Software
> > > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> <+48660796129
> > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > > >>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > > > Engineer
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > > > > >
> > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer
> > > > >
> > > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Unique Tech
> > > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >
> > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer
> >
> > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
> >
> > Unique Tech
> > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Jarek Potiuk
> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>
> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>.

:(

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:35 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <to...@polidea.com>
wrote:

> I started to play with self-hosted runner and... well, encountered known
> error:
>
> https://github.community/t5/GitHub-Actions/Github-action-stuck-at-queue/td-p/38003
>
> It seems that GA is still maturing.
>
> Bests,
> Tomek
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 5:06 PM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah. All at once seems more than reasonable.
> >
> > J.
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:50 PM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Agree with Daniel, let's do it all at once.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:49 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > daniel.imberman@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I’d rather we do it all at once and not need to maintain two builds.
> > > > Most/all of our CI/CD is dockerized at this point so there shouldn’t
> > be a
> > > > huge difference.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:23 AM, Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I have to solve a problem with our kubernetes test but for your
> > > information
> > > > I have never experienced a flaky
> > > > or timeouted build on Github Actions. Maybe I am lucky or maybe
> there's
> > > > something different.
> > > >
> > > > If we agree to move to Github Actions, would we like to migrate
> > > > incrementally or fully?
> > > >
> > > > Bests,
> > > > Tomek
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > No problem on that side - Tomek is using the same scripts we have
> on
> > > > Travis
> > > > > (and they generally work - I think the last step is to make all the
> > > > > tests pass. We have still a number of dependencies between tests
> and
> > > some
> > > > > environmental flakiness so that some tests consistently fail in
> > Github
> > > > > Actions where they did not fail in Travis. From latest try by Tomek
> > it
> > > > > looks like we are 1 test to go (plus some cleanup/setup of project
> > and
> > > > > making sure all is stable):
> > > > >
> > > > > ==== 1 failed, 4030 passed, 119 skipped, 16 warnings in 1207.96s
> > > > (0:20:07)
> > > > > =====
> > > > >
> > > > > We discussed with Tomek and Kamil that in order to speed it up we
> > might
> > > > > want to run our own workers on the GCP account we have - just to
> test
> > > > > quickly how much we can optimise it and I am inclined to agree. If
> we
> > > do
> > > > it
> > > > > this way, the transition might be rather fast.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we want to use auto-scalable GKE cluster as we originally
> planned
> > it
> > > > > might take more time to setup (similar setup to what I tried with
> > > > GitLab).
> > > > > There we might need to use docker-in-docker to build the CI image
> > with
> > > > > latest as first step of build and then use that built image by all
> > > > > subsequent steps. But we can do it as the next step - optimising
> the
> > > > > experience.
> > > > >
> > > > > J.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 on my end as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @jarek does this affect anything involving breeze? Do GitHub
> > actions
> > > > have
> > > > > > an easy docker/docker-compose based workflow?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > via Newton Mail [
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2
> > > > > > ]
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:28 AM, Ash Berlin-Taylor <
> ash@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Legal: no I don't think so.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there to run things on our
> > own
> > > > > > "hardware" -
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > > <
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > >
> > > > > > needs someone with Admin rights to create, and I don't see the
> > > Settings
> > > > > tab
> > > > > > at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -ash
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <xd...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it for months for my
> > side
> > > > > > > projects, and it’s working very well. I believe most of us are
> > > quite
> > > > > > tired
> > > > > > > of the waiting time using Travis CI.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only point I would like to remind is whether we need to
> > > > communicate
> > > > > > > with Infra/Legal team for this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > XD
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> +1 for Github actions
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI
> experience -
> > > > > faster
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >>> good too!
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> -a
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
> > > > > > >>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so far
> and
> > > > > > >>>> recently it
> > > > > > >>>>> seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in
> > > Enterrprise
> > > > > > >>>> Edition,
> > > > > > >>>>> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit disappointed
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> pace and
> > > > > > >>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better choice -
> > > > > especially
> > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > >>>>> they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem to
> get
> > > > > > >>>>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which makes it
> > > > possible
> > > > > > >>>> for us
> > > > > > >>>>> to optimise the experience.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > > >>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than
> > > Travis.
> > > > > One
> > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>> main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability
> to
> > > > work
> > > > > > >>>> on
> > > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks
> > > Github
> > > > > > >>>> Actions
> > > > > > >>>>>> matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but using them have few
> big
> > > > > > >>>> advantages:
> > > > > > >>>>>> - they are Github natives
> > > > > > >>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your
> fork
> > > > > > >>>>> automatically
> > > > > > >>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > > > > > >>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like information about
> steps
> > > > > > >>>> successes at
> > > > > > >>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step
> > failed).
> > > > The
> > > > > > >>>> build
> > > > > > >>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions?
> Any
> > > > > > >>>> thoughts
> > > > > > >>>>>> about using it?
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > >>>>>> Tomek
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <
> > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the history behind
> GitLabCI
> > > > > > >>>> (featuring
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > >>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly
> easily
> > > > > > >>>> replicate
> > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it
> > generally
> > > > > > >>>> works, I
> > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main
> > Airflow
> > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > >>>>>> for a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no
> holidays)
> > > and
> > > > > > >>>> once we
> > > > > > >>>>>> see
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we
> can
> > > > > > >>>> switch to
> > > > > > >>>>> it.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to
> > set
> > > it
> > > > > > >>>> up ?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Some details
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI +
> > > > > > >>>> kubernetes -
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this
> should
> > > > > > >>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>> rather easy
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> with kind (looking at it next):
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Working example here - you can take a look and compare
> > the
> > > > > > >>>>> UI/how
> > > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still
> > > > > > >>>> around 35
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I
> > can
> > > > > > >>>> play
> > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some
> > > > > > >>>> reasonable
> > > > > > >>>>>> values now),
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial
> 24) -
> > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from
> each
> > > > > > >>>> other.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have
> > built
> > > > > > >>>> in
> > > > > > >>>>> retry
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures
> > like
> > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We
> should
> > be
> > > > > > >>>> way
> > > > > > >>>>>> below
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope
> > > > > > >>>> calculations.
> > > > > > >>>>>> Likely
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> well below
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko
> > as
> > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> originally planned. GCR would require custom
> > authentication
> > > > > > >>>> (and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well
> handle
> > > > > > >>>>>> multi-staging
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> builds (cache does not work
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682
> > ).
> > > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > > >>>>>> updated
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> reflect that.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we
> > can
> > > > > > >>>> have
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's
> stability
> > > > > > >>>> (it has
> > > > > > >>>>>> problems
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> sometimes)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in
> any
> > > > > > >>>>>> Kubernetes
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting
> > for
> > > > > > >>>> docker
> > > > > > >>>>>> engine
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be
> > generally
> > > > > > >>>>>> replicable).
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> - You can take a look at the current source code in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom
> > > > > > >>>> builder
> > > > > > >>>>>> Docker,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's
> > > > > > >>>> mostly
> > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables +
> > gitlab.ci
> > > > > > >>>> yaml
> > > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> job definitions.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds
> > > from
> > > > > > >>>> for PRs
> > > > > > >>>>>> :).
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> napisał:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI
> > issue
> > > > > > >>>> about
> > > > > > >>>>> PRs
> > > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of
> > > > Product
> > > > > > >>>>>> Management @
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in
> order
> > to
> > > > > > >>>>> alleviate
> > > > > > >>>>>> any
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the
> whole
> > > > > > >>>> system on
> > > > > > >>>>>> GitLab
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for
> quite
> > > some
> > > > > > >>>> time
> > > > > > >>>>>> (even
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we
> > will
> > > > be
> > > > > > >>>> able
> > > > > > >>>>>> to tune
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases and compare the
> > experience
> > > of
> > > > > > >>>> both
> > > > > > >>>>>> systems.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will
> > make
> > > > > > >>>> sure that
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes
> > experience
> > > > > > >>>> (from my
> > > > > > >>>>>> company)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure there will be no
> > problems.
> > > > > > >>>> However
> > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I
> am
> > > > > > >>>> away. I
> > > > > > >>>>>> would also
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join
> > the
> > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see
> how
> > > easy
> > > > > > >>>> it is
> > > > > > >>>>>> and how
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
> > > > > > >>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other
> > problems
> > > -
> > > > > > >>>>> building
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch.
> > > > > > >>>> Currently,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD service.
> Unfortunately,
> > > our
> > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the documentation is not built
> > > > properly.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another way to build
> > documentation.
> > > > In
> > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>> ideal
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation should use the same
> > > > > > >>>> environment as
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to
> > Travis
> > > > can
> > > > > > >>>>> further
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >
> > https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project
> > will
> > > > > > >>>> soon
> > > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation will also be available
> in
> > > > many
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the
> > > > design
> > > > > > >>>>> studio
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you
> to
> > > > > > >>>> build a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks
> should
> > be
> > > > > > >>>>> combined.
> > > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that
> will
> > > be
> > > > a
> > > > > > >>>> real
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on current events, so it
> will
> > > be
> > > > > > >>>> updated
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now
> > have
> > > > > > >>>> problems
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > >>>> future
> > > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable
> > > > > > >>>> infrastructure
> > > > > > >>>>>> for
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another situation which was not
> > > > > > >>>> pleasant for
> > > > > > >>>>>> me.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of
> > Travis,
> > > I
> > > > > > >>>> had to
> > > > > > >>>>>> wait
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my
> > > changes
> > > > > > >>>> in a
> > > > > > >>>>>> week,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I
> did
> > > it
> > > > > > >>>> over
> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked
> on
> > > > > > >>>> Travis by
> > > > > > >>>>> my
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where I described general
> > > > > > >>>> architecture
> > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly -
> > having
> > > > > > >>>> GitLab
> > > > > > >>>>> CI
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon
> > but
> > > > > > >>>> before
> > > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> start
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get some comments and
> > opinions
> > > > > > >>>> on the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the basic approach with my
> > friend
> > > > > > >>>> Kamil
> > > > > > >>>>> who
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> works at
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we
> > > think
> > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short time.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details and make changes to
> the
> > > > > > >>>> proposal -
> > > > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments in the document.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think about it and if we get
> to
> > > some
> > > > > > >>>>>> consensus
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy
> > > consensus
> > > > > > >>>> as
> > > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have rather quickly)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments!
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> > Software
> > > > > > >>>>> Engineer
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > <+48660796129
> > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> Software
> > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> <+48660796129
> > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > > > Engineer
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > > >>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > > Engineer
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > > >>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > > > >
> > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer
> > > >
> > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
> > > >
> > > > Unique Tech
> > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Jarek Potiuk
> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> >
> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Tomasz Urbaszek
> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer
>
> M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
>
> Unique Tech
> Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
>


-- 

Jarek Potiuk
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer

M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Tomasz Urbaszek <to...@polidea.com>.

I started to play with self-hosted runner and... well, encountered known
error:
https://github.community/t5/GitHub-Actions/Github-action-stuck-at-queue/td-p/38003

It seems that GA is still maturing.

Bests,
Tomek

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 5:06 PM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
wrote:

> Yeah. All at once seems more than reasonable.
>
> J.
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:50 PM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Agree with Daniel, let's do it all at once.
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:49 PM Daniel Imberman <
> daniel.imberman@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I’d rather we do it all at once and not need to maintain two builds.
> > > Most/all of our CI/CD is dockerized at this point so there shouldn’t
> be a
> > > huge difference.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:23 AM, Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I have to solve a problem with our kubernetes test but for your
> > information
> > > I have never experienced a flaky
> > > or timeouted build on Github Actions. Maybe I am lucky or maybe there's
> > > something different.
> > >
> > > If we agree to move to Github Actions, would we like to migrate
> > > incrementally or fully?
> > >
> > > Bests,
> > > Tomek
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > No problem on that side - Tomek is using the same scripts we have on
> > > Travis
> > > > (and they generally work - I think the last step is to make all the
> > > > tests pass. We have still a number of dependencies between tests and
> > some
> > > > environmental flakiness so that some tests consistently fail in
> Github
> > > > Actions where they did not fail in Travis. From latest try by Tomek
> it
> > > > looks like we are 1 test to go (plus some cleanup/setup of project
> and
> > > > making sure all is stable):
> > > >
> > > > ==== 1 failed, 4030 passed, 119 skipped, 16 warnings in 1207.96s
> > > (0:20:07)
> > > > =====
> > > >
> > > > We discussed with Tomek and Kamil that in order to speed it up we
> might
> > > > want to run our own workers on the GCP account we have - just to test
> > > > quickly how much we can optimise it and I am inclined to agree. If we
> > do
> > > it
> > > > this way, the transition might be rather fast.
> > > >
> > > > If we want to use auto-scalable GKE cluster as we originally planned
> it
> > > > might take more time to setup (similar setup to what I tried with
> > > GitLab).
> > > > There we might need to use docker-in-docker to build the CI image
> with
> > > > latest as first step of build and then use that built image by all
> > > > subsequent steps. But we can do it as the next step - optimising the
> > > > experience.
> > > >
> > > > J.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 on my end as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > @jarek does this affect anything involving breeze? Do GitHub
> actions
> > > have
> > > > > an easy docker/docker-compose based workflow?
> > > > >
> > > > > via Newton Mail [
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2
> > > > > ]
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:28 AM, Ash Berlin-Taylor <ash@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Legal: no I don't think so.
> > > > >
> > > > > Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there to run things on our
> own
> > > > > "hardware" -
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > >
> > > > > needs someone with Admin rights to create, and I don't see the
> > Settings
> > > > tab
> > > > > at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > -ash
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <xd...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it for months for my
> side
> > > > > > projects, and it’s working very well. I believe most of us are
> > quite
> > > > > tired
> > > > > > of the waiting time using Travis CI.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only point I would like to remind is whether we need to
> > > communicate
> > > > > > with Infra/Legal team for this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > XD
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> +1 for Github actions
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI experience -
> > > > faster
> > > > > is
> > > > > >>> good too!
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> -a
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
> > > > > >>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > >>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so far and
> > > > > >>>> recently it
> > > > > >>>>> seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in
> > Enterrprise
> > > > > >>>> Edition,
> > > > > >>>>> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit disappointed
> with
> > > the
> > > > > >>>> pace and
> > > > > >>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better choice -
> > > > especially
> > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > >>>>> they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem to get
> > > > > >>>>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which makes it
> > > possible
> > > > > >>>> for us
> > > > > >>>>> to optimise the experience.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > > >>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than
> > Travis.
> > > > One
> > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>> main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability to
> > > work
> > > > > >>>> on
> > > > > >>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks
> > Github
> > > > > >>>> Actions
> > > > > >>>>>> matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but using them have few big
> > > > > >>>> advantages:
> > > > > >>>>>> - they are Github natives
> > > > > >>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your fork
> > > > > >>>>> automatically
> > > > > >>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > > > > >>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like information about steps
> > > > > >>>> successes at
> > > > > >>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step
> failed).
> > > The
> > > > > >>>> build
> > > > > >>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions? Any
> > > > > >>>> thoughts
> > > > > >>>>>> about using it?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > > > >>>>>> Tomek
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <
> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the history behind GitLabCI
> > > > > >>>> (featuring
> > > > > >>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > >>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly easily
> > > > > >>>> replicate
> > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it
> generally
> > > > > >>>> works, I
> > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > >>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main
> Airflow
> > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > >>>>>> for a
> > > > > >>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no holidays)
> > and
> > > > > >>>> once we
> > > > > >>>>>> see
> > > > > >>>>>>>> it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we can
> > > > > >>>> switch to
> > > > > >>>>> it.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to
> set
> > it
> > > > > >>>> up ?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Some details
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI +
> > > > > >>>> kubernetes -
> > > > > >>>>>>>> without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this should
> > > > > >>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>> rather easy
> > > > > >>>>>>>> with kind (looking at it next):
> > > > > >>>>>>>> - Working example here - you can take a look and compare
> the
> > > > > >>>>> UI/how
> > > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>> is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > > > > >>>>>>>> - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still
> > > > > >>>> around 35
> > > > > >>>>>>>> minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I
> can
> > > > > >>>> play
> > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>> memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some
> > > > > >>>> reasonable
> > > > > >>>>>> values now),
> > > > > >>>>>>>> I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
> > > > > >>>>>>>> - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial 24) -
> > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > > >>>>>>>> let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from each
> > > > > >>>> other.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have
> built
> > > > > >>>> in
> > > > > >>>>> retry
> > > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures
> like
> > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>> - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We should
> be
> > > > > >>>> way
> > > > > >>>>>> below
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope
> > > > > >>>> calculations.
> > > > > >>>>>> Likely
> > > > > >>>>>>>> well below
> > > > > >>>>>>>> - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko
> as
> > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > >>>>>>>> originally planned. GCR would require custom
> authentication
> > > > > >>>> (and
> > > > > >>>>>>>> easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well handle
> > > > > >>>>>> multi-staging
> > > > > >>>>>>>> builds (cache does not work
> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682
> ).
> > > > > >>>> I
> > > > > >>>>>> updated
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>> reflect that.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we
> can
> > > > > >>>> have
> > > > > >>>>>>>> reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's stability
> > > > > >>>> (it has
> > > > > >>>>>> problems
> > > > > >>>>>>>> sometimes)
> > > > > >>>>>>>> - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in any
> > > > > >>>>>> Kubernetes
> > > > > >>>>>>>> cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting
> for
> > > > > >>>> docker
> > > > > >>>>>> engine
> > > > > >>>>>>>> might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be
> generally
> > > > > >>>>>> replicable).
> > > > > >>>>>>>> - You can take a look at the current source code in
> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > > > > >>>>>>>> - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom
> > > > > >>>> builder
> > > > > >>>>>> Docker,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's
> > > > > >>>> mostly
> > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > >>>>>>>> cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables +
> gitlab.ci
> > > > > >>>> yaml
> > > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>> job definitions.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds
> > from
> > > > > >>>> for PRs
> > > > > >>>>>> :).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> napisał:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI
> issue
> > > > > >>>> about
> > > > > >>>>> PRs
> > > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of
> > > Product
> > > > > >>>>>> Management @
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in order
> to
> > > > > >>>>> alleviate
> > > > > >>>>>> any
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the whole
> > > > > >>>> system on
> > > > > >>>>>> GitLab
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for quite
> > some
> > > > > >>>> time
> > > > > >>>>>> (even
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we
> will
> > > be
> > > > > >>>> able
> > > > > >>>>>> to tune
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases and compare the
> experience
> > of
> > > > > >>>> both
> > > > > >>>>>> systems.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will
> make
> > > > > >>>> sure that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes
> experience
> > > > > >>>> (from my
> > > > > >>>>>> company)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure there will be no
> problems.
> > > > > >>>> However
> > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I am
> > > > > >>>> away. I
> > > > > >>>>>> would also
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join
> the
> > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see how
> > easy
> > > > > >>>> it is
> > > > > >>>>>> and how
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
> > > > > >>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other
> problems
> > -
> > > > > >>>>> building
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch.
> > > > > >>>> Currently,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD service. Unfortunately,
> > our
> > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the documentation is not built
> > > properly.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another way to build
> documentation.
> > > In
> > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>> ideal
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation should use the same
> > > > > >>>> environment as
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to
> Travis
> > > can
> > > > > >>>>> further
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > >
> https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project
> will
> > > > > >>>> soon
> > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation will also be available in
> > > many
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the
> > > design
> > > > > >>>>> studio
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you to
> > > > > >>>> build a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks should
> be
> > > > > >>>>> combined.
> > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that will
> > be
> > > a
> > > > > >>>> real
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on current events, so it will
> > be
> > > > > >>>> updated
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now
> have
> > > > > >>>> problems
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems in
> > the
> > > > > >>>> future
> > > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable
> > > > > >>>> infrastructure
> > > > > >>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another situation which was not
> > > > > >>>> pleasant for
> > > > > >>>>>> me.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of
> Travis,
> > I
> > > > > >>>> had to
> > > > > >>>>>> wait
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my
> > changes
> > > > > >>>> in a
> > > > > >>>>>> week,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I did
> > it
> > > > > >>>> over
> > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked on
> > > > > >>>> Travis by
> > > > > >>>>> my
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where I described general
> > > > > >>>> architecture
> > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly -
> having
> > > > > >>>> GitLab
> > > > > >>>>> CI
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon
> but
> > > > > >>>> before
> > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> start
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get some comments and
> opinions
> > > > > >>>> on the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the basic approach with my
> friend
> > > > > >>>> Kamil
> > > > > >>>>> who
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> works at
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we
> > think
> > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short time.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details and make changes to the
> > > > > >>>> proposal -
> > > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments in the document.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think about it and if we get to
> > some
> > > > > >>>>>> consensus
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy
> > consensus
> > > > > >>>> as
> > > > > >>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have rather quickly)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal
> Software
> > > > > >>>>> Engineer
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> <+48660796129
> > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > >>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > > Engineer
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > > >>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > Engineer
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > > >>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > > >
> > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer
> > >
> > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
> > >
> > > Unique Tech
> > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Jarek Potiuk
> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>
> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>


-- 

Tomasz Urbaszek
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer

M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>

Unique Tech
Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>.

Yeah. All at once seems more than reasonable.

J.

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 4:50 PM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Agree with Daniel, let's do it all at once.
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:49 PM Daniel Imberman <daniel.imberman@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > I’d rather we do it all at once and not need to maintain two builds.
> > Most/all of our CI/CD is dockerized at this point so there shouldn’t be a
> > huge difference.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:23 AM, Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have to solve a problem with our kubernetes test but for your
> information
> > I have never experienced a flaky
> > or timeouted build on Github Actions. Maybe I am lucky or maybe there's
> > something different.
> >
> > If we agree to move to Github Actions, would we like to migrate
> > incrementally or fully?
> >
> > Bests,
> > Tomek
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > No problem on that side - Tomek is using the same scripts we have on
> > Travis
> > > (and they generally work - I think the last step is to make all the
> > > tests pass. We have still a number of dependencies between tests and
> some
> > > environmental flakiness so that some tests consistently fail in Github
> > > Actions where they did not fail in Travis. From latest try by Tomek it
> > > looks like we are 1 test to go (plus some cleanup/setup of project and
> > > making sure all is stable):
> > >
> > > ==== 1 failed, 4030 passed, 119 skipped, 16 warnings in 1207.96s
> > (0:20:07)
> > > =====
> > >
> > > We discussed with Tomek and Kamil that in order to speed it up we might
> > > want to run our own workers on the GCP account we have - just to test
> > > quickly how much we can optimise it and I am inclined to agree. If we
> do
> > it
> > > this way, the transition might be rather fast.
> > >
> > > If we want to use auto-scalable GKE cluster as we originally planned it
> > > might take more time to setup (similar setup to what I tried with
> > GitLab).
> > > There we might need to use docker-in-docker to build the CI image with
> > > latest as first step of build and then use that built image by all
> > > subsequent steps. But we can do it as the next step - optimising the
> > > experience.
> > >
> > > J.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > > daniel.imberman@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 on my end as well.
> > > >
> > > > @jarek does this affect anything involving breeze? Do GitHub actions
> > have
> > > > an easy docker/docker-compose based workflow?
> > > >
> > > > via Newton Mail [
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2
> > > > ]
> > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:28 AM, Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Legal: no I don't think so.
> > > >
> > > > Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there to run things on our own
> > > > "hardware" -
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > >
> > > > needs someone with Admin rights to create, and I don't see the
> Settings
> > > tab
> > > > at all.
> > > >
> > > > -ash
> > > >
> > > > > On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <xd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it for months for my side
> > > > > projects, and it’s working very well. I believe most of us are
> quite
> > > > tired
> > > > > of the waiting time using Travis CI.
> > > > >
> > > > > The only point I would like to remind is whether we need to
> > communicate
> > > > > with Infra/Legal team for this.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > XD
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> +1 for Github actions
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI experience -
> > > faster
> > > > is
> > > > >>> good too!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> -a
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
> > > > >>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > > >
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so far and
> > > > >>>> recently it
> > > > >>>>> seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in
> Enterrprise
> > > > >>>> Edition,
> > > > >>>>> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit disappointed with
> > the
> > > > >>>> pace and
> > > > >>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better choice -
> > > especially
> > > > >>>> that
> > > > >>>>> they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem to get
> > > > >>>>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which makes it
> > possible
> > > > >>>> for us
> > > > >>>>> to optimise the experience.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> J.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > > >>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than
> Travis.
> > > One
> > > > >>>> of
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>> main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability to
> > work
> > > > >>>> on
> > > > >>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks
> Github
> > > > >>>> Actions
> > > > >>>>>> matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but using them have few big
> > > > >>>> advantages:
> > > > >>>>>> - they are Github natives
> > > > >>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your fork
> > > > >>>>> automatically
> > > > >>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > > > >>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like information about steps
> > > > >>>> successes at
> > > > >>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step failed).
> > The
> > > > >>>> build
> > > > >>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions? Any
> > > > >>>> thoughts
> > > > >>>>>> about using it?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > > >>>>>> Tomek
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <
> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the history behind GitLabCI
> > > > >>>> (featuring
> > > > >>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
> > > > >>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly easily
> > > > >>>> replicate
> > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it generally
> > > > >>>> works, I
> > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > >>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main Airflow
> > > > >>>> project
> > > > >>>>>> for a
> > > > >>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no holidays)
> and
> > > > >>>> once we
> > > > >>>>>> see
> > > > >>>>>>>> it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we can
> > > > >>>> switch to
> > > > >>>>> it.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to set
> it
> > > > >>>> up ?
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Some details
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI +
> > > > >>>> kubernetes -
> > > > >>>>>>>> without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this should
> > > > >>>> be
> > > > >>>>>> rather easy
> > > > >>>>>>>> with kind (looking at it next):
> > > > >>>>>>>> - Working example here - you can take a look and compare the
> > > > >>>>> UI/how
> > > > >>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>> is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > > > >>>>>>>> https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > > > >>>>>>>> - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still
> > > > >>>> around 35
> > > > >>>>>>>> minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I can
> > > > >>>> play
> > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>> memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some
> > > > >>>> reasonable
> > > > >>>>>> values now),
> > > > >>>>>>>> I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
> > > > >>>>>>>> - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial 24) -
> > > > >>>> that
> > > > >>>>>> should
> > > > >>>>>>>> let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from each
> > > > >>>> other.
> > > > >>>>>>>> - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have built
> > > > >>>> in
> > > > >>>>> retry
> > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures like
> > > > >>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>> - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We should be
> > > > >>>> way
> > > > >>>>>> below
> > > > >>>>>>>> 500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope
> > > > >>>> calculations.
> > > > >>>>>> Likely
> > > > >>>>>>>> well below
> > > > >>>>>>>> - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko as
> > > > >>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>>> originally planned. GCR would require custom authentication
> > > > >>>> (and
> > > > >>>>>>>> easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well handle
> > > > >>>>>> multi-staging
> > > > >>>>>>>> builds (cache does not work
> > > > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682).
> > > > >>>> I
> > > > >>>>>> updated
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>> reflect that.
> > > > >>>>>>>> - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we can
> > > > >>>> have
> > > > >>>>>>>> reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's stability
> > > > >>>> (it has
> > > > >>>>>> problems
> > > > >>>>>>>> sometimes)
> > > > >>>>>>>> - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in any
> > > > >>>>>> Kubernetes
> > > > >>>>>>>> cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting for
> > > > >>>> docker
> > > > >>>>>> engine
> > > > >>>>>>>> might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be generally
> > > > >>>>>> replicable).
> > > > >>>>>>>> - You can take a look at the current source code in
> > > > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > > > >>>>>>>> - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom
> > > > >>>> builder
> > > > >>>>>> Docker,
> > > > >>>>>>>> simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's
> > > > >>>> mostly
> > > > >>>>> some
> > > > >>>>>>>> cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables + gitlab.ci
> > > > >>>> yaml
> > > > >>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>> job definitions.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> J.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds
> from
> > > > >>>> for PRs
> > > > >>>>>> :).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> napisał:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI issue
> > > > >>>> about
> > > > >>>>> PRs
> > > > >>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of
> > Product
> > > > >>>>>> Management @
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in order to
> > > > >>>>> alleviate
> > > > >>>>>> any
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the whole
> > > > >>>> system on
> > > > >>>>>> GitLab
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for quite
> some
> > > > >>>> time
> > > > >>>>>> (even
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we will
> > be
> > > > >>>> able
> > > > >>>>>> to tune
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases and compare the experience
> of
> > > > >>>> both
> > > > >>>>>> systems.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will make
> > > > >>>> sure that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes experience
> > > > >>>> (from my
> > > > >>>>>> company)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure there will be no problems.
> > > > >>>> However
> > > > >>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>> am
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I am
> > > > >>>> away. I
> > > > >>>>>> would also
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join the
> > > > >>>> project
> > > > >>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see how
> easy
> > > > >>>> it is
> > > > >>>>>> and how
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
> > > > >>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other problems
> -
> > > > >>>>> building
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch.
> > > > >>>> Currently,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD service. Unfortunately,
> our
> > > > >>>> project
> > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the documentation is not built
> > properly.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another way to build documentation.
> > In
> > > > >>>> the
> > > > >>>>>> ideal
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation should use the same
> > > > >>>> environment as
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to Travis
> > can
> > > > >>>>> further
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project will
> > > > >>>> soon
> > > > >>>>> have
> > > > >>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation will also be available in
> > many
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the
> > design
> > > > >>>>> studio
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you to
> > > > >>>> build a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks should be
> > > > >>>>> combined.
> > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that will
> be
> > a
> > > > >>>> real
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on current events, so it will
> be
> > > > >>>> updated
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now have
> > > > >>>> problems
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems in
> the
> > > > >>>> future
> > > > >>>>>> can
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable
> > > > >>>> infrastructure
> > > > >>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another situation which was not
> > > > >>>> pleasant for
> > > > >>>>>> me.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of Travis,
> I
> > > > >>>> had to
> > > > >>>>>> wait
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my
> changes
> > > > >>>> in a
> > > > >>>>>> week,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I did
> it
> > > > >>>> over
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked on
> > > > >>>> Travis by
> > > > >>>>> my
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where I described general
> > > > >>>> architecture
> > > > >>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly - having
> > > > >>>> GitLab
> > > > >>>>> CI
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon but
> > > > >>>> before
> > > > >>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> start
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get some comments and opinions
> > > > >>>> on the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the basic approach with my friend
> > > > >>>> Kamil
> > > > >>>>> who
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> works at
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we
> think
> > > > >>>> will
> > > > >>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short time.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details and make changes to the
> > > > >>>> proposal -
> > > > >>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments in the document.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think about it and if we get to
> some
> > > > >>>>>> consensus
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy
> consensus
> > > > >>>> as
> > > > >>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have rather quickly)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > > > >>>>> Engineer
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > >>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > > > >>>> Engineer
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > >>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > Engineer
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > >>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > > >>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> Engineer
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > >>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >
> > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Tomasz Urbaszek
> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer
> >
> > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> > E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
> >
> > Unique Tech
> > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
>


-- 

Jarek Potiuk
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer

M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>.

Agree with Daniel, let's do it all at once.

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:49 PM Daniel Imberman <da...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I’d rather we do it all at once and not need to maintain two builds.
> Most/all of our CI/CD is dockerized at this point so there shouldn’t be a
> huge difference.
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:23 AM, Tomasz Urbaszek <
> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have to solve a problem with our kubernetes test but for your information
> I have never experienced a flaky
> or timeouted build on Github Actions. Maybe I am lucky or maybe there's
> something different.
>
> If we agree to move to Github Actions, would we like to migrate
> incrementally or fully?
>
> Bests,
> Tomek
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> wrote:
>
> > No problem on that side - Tomek is using the same scripts we have on
> Travis
> > (and they generally work - I think the last step is to make all the
> > tests pass. We have still a number of dependencies between tests and some
> > environmental flakiness so that some tests consistently fail in Github
> > Actions where they did not fail in Travis. From latest try by Tomek it
> > looks like we are 1 test to go (plus some cleanup/setup of project and
> > making sure all is stable):
> >
> > ==== 1 failed, 4030 passed, 119 skipped, 16 warnings in 1207.96s
> (0:20:07)
> > =====
> >
> > We discussed with Tomek and Kamil that in order to speed it up we might
> > want to run our own workers on the GCP account we have - just to test
> > quickly how much we can optimise it and I am inclined to agree. If we do
> it
> > this way, the transition might be rather fast.
> >
> > If we want to use auto-scalable GKE cluster as we originally planned it
> > might take more time to setup (similar setup to what I tried with
> GitLab).
> > There we might need to use docker-in-docker to build the CI image with
> > latest as first step of build and then use that built image by all
> > subsequent steps. But we can do it as the next step - optimising the
> > experience.
> >
> > J.
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Daniel Imberman <
> > daniel.imberman@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 on my end as well.
> > >
> > > @jarek does this affect anything involving breeze? Do GitHub actions
> have
> > > an easy docker/docker-compose based workflow?
> > >
> > > via Newton Mail [
> > >
> >
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2
> > > ]
> > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:28 AM, Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > Legal: no I don't think so.
> > >
> > > Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there to run things on our own
> > > "hardware" -
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > >
> > > needs someone with Admin rights to create, and I don't see the Settings
> > tab
> > > at all.
> > >
> > > -ash
> > >
> > > > On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <xd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it for months for my side
> > > > projects, and it’s working very well. I believe most of us are quite
> > > tired
> > > > of the waiting time using Travis CI.
> > > >
> > > > The only point I would like to remind is whether we need to
> communicate
> > > > with Infra/Legal team for this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > XD
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> +1 for Github actions
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI experience -
> > faster
> > > is
> > > >>> good too!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -a
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
> > > >>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > > >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so far and
> > > >>>> recently it
> > > >>>>> seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in Enterrprise
> > > >>>> Edition,
> > > >>>>> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit disappointed with
> the
> > > >>>> pace and
> > > >>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better choice -
> > especially
> > > >>>> that
> > > >>>>> they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem to get
> > > >>>>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which makes it
> possible
> > > >>>> for us
> > > >>>>> to optimise the experience.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> J.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> J.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > >>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than Travis.
> > One
> > > >>>> of
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>> main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability to
> work
> > > >>>> on
> > > >>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks Github
> > > >>>> Actions
> > > >>>>>> matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but using them have few big
> > > >>>> advantages:
> > > >>>>>> - they are Github natives
> > > >>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your fork
> > > >>>>> automatically
> > > >>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> > > >>>>>> https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > > >>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like information about steps
> > > >>>> successes at
> > > >>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step failed).
> The
> > > >>>> build
> > > >>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions? Any
> > > >>>> thoughts
> > > >>>>>> about using it?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Best,
> > > >>>>>> Tomek
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the history behind GitLabCI
> > > >>>> (featuring
> > > >>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
> > > >>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly easily
> > > >>>> replicate
> > > >>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it generally
> > > >>>> works, I
> > > >>>>>> can
> > > >>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main Airflow
> > > >>>> project
> > > >>>>>> for a
> > > >>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no holidays) and
> > > >>>> once we
> > > >>>>>> see
> > > >>>>>>>> it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we can
> > > >>>> switch to
> > > >>>>> it.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to set it
> > > >>>> up ?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Some details
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI +
> > > >>>> kubernetes -
> > > >>>>>>>> without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this should
> > > >>>> be
> > > >>>>>> rather easy
> > > >>>>>>>> with kind (looking at it next):
> > > >>>>>>>> - Working example here - you can take a look and compare the
> > > >>>>> UI/how
> > > >>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>> is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > > >>>>>>>> https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > > >>>>>>>> - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still
> > > >>>> around 35
> > > >>>>>>>> minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I can
> > > >>>> play
> > > >>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>> memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some
> > > >>>> reasonable
> > > >>>>>> values now),
> > > >>>>>>>> I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
> > > >>>>>>>> - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial 24) -
> > > >>>> that
> > > >>>>>> should
> > > >>>>>>>> let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from each
> > > >>>> other.
> > > >>>>>>>> - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have built
> > > >>>> in
> > > >>>>> retry
> > > >>>>>>>> mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures like
> > > >>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>> - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We should be
> > > >>>> way
> > > >>>>>> below
> > > >>>>>>>> 500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope
> > > >>>> calculations.
> > > >>>>>> Likely
> > > >>>>>>>> well below
> > > >>>>>>>> - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko as
> > > >>>> I
> > > >>>>>>>> originally planned. GCR would require custom authentication
> > > >>>> (and
> > > >>>>>>>> easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well handle
> > > >>>>>> multi-staging
> > > >>>>>>>> builds (cache does not work
> > > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682).
> > > >>>> I
> > > >>>>>> updated
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > >>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>> reflect that.
> > > >>>>>>>> - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we can
> > > >>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>> reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's stability
> > > >>>> (it has
> > > >>>>>> problems
> > > >>>>>>>> sometimes)
> > > >>>>>>>> - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in any
> > > >>>>>> Kubernetes
> > > >>>>>>>> cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting for
> > > >>>> docker
> > > >>>>>> engine
> > > >>>>>>>> might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be generally
> > > >>>>>> replicable).
> > > >>>>>>>> - You can take a look at the current source code in
> > > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > > >>>>>>>> - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom
> > > >>>> builder
> > > >>>>>> Docker,
> > > >>>>>>>> simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's
> > > >>>> mostly
> > > >>>>> some
> > > >>>>>>>> cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables + gitlab.ci
> > > >>>> yaml
> > > >>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>> job definitions.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> J.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds from
> > > >>>> for PRs
> > > >>>>>> :).
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
> > > >>>>>>>>> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
> > > >>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
> > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>> napisał:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI issue
> > > >>>> about
> > > >>>>> PRs
> > > >>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of
> Product
> > > >>>>>> Management @
> > > >>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in order to
> > > >>>>> alleviate
> > > >>>>>> any
> > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the whole
> > > >>>> system on
> > > >>>>>> GitLab
> > > >>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for quite some
> > > >>>> time
> > > >>>>>> (even
> > > >>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we will
> be
> > > >>>> able
> > > >>>>>> to tune
> > > >>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases and compare the experience of
> > > >>>> both
> > > >>>>>> systems.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will make
> > > >>>> sure that
> > > >>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes experience
> > > >>>> (from my
> > > >>>>>> company)
> > > >>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure there will be no problems.
> > > >>>> However
> > > >>>>> I
> > > >>>>>> am
> > > >>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I am
> > > >>>> away. I
> > > >>>>>> would also
> > > >>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join the
> > > >>>> project
> > > >>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see how easy
> > > >>>> it is
> > > >>>>>> and how
> > > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
> > > >>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other problems -
> > > >>>>> building
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch.
> > > >>>> Currently,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD service. Unfortunately, our
> > > >>>> project
> > > >>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the documentation is not built
> properly.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another way to build documentation.
> In
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>> ideal
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation should use the same
> > > >>>> environment as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to Travis
> can
> > > >>>>> further
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project will
> > > >>>> soon
> > > >>>>> have
> > > >>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation will also be available in
> many
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the
> design
> > > >>>>> studio
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you to
> > > >>>> build a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks should be
> > > >>>>> combined.
> > > >>>>>> I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that will be
> a
> > > >>>> real
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on current events, so it will be
> > > >>>> updated
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now have
> > > >>>> problems
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems in the
> > > >>>> future
> > > >>>>>> can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable
> > > >>>> infrastructure
> > > >>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another situation which was not
> > > >>>> pleasant for
> > > >>>>>> me.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of Travis, I
> > > >>>> had to
> > > >>>>>> wait
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my changes
> > > >>>> in a
> > > >>>>>> week,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I did it
> > > >>>> over
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked on
> > > >>>> Travis by
> > > >>>>> my
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where I described general
> > > >>>> architecture
> > > >>>>> of
> > > >>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly - having
> > > >>>> GitLab
> > > >>>>> CI
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> support
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon but
> > > >>>> before
> > > >>>>> I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> start
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get some comments and opinions
> > > >>>> on the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the basic approach with my friend
> > > >>>> Kamil
> > > >>>>> who
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> works at
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we think
> > > >>>> will
> > > >>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short time.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details and make changes to the
> > > >>>> proposal -
> > > >>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments in the document.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think about it and if we get to some
> > > >>>>>> consensus
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy consensus
> > > >>>> as
> > > >>>>> this
> > > >>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have rather quickly)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> J.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > > >>>>> Engineer
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > > >>>> Engineer
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > >>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > > >>>> Engineer
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > >>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > >>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> Engineer
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > >>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> --
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > >>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > >>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Jarek Potiuk
> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> >
> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Tomasz Urbaszek
> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer
>
> M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
> E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>
>
> Unique Tech
> Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Daniel Imberman <da...@gmail.com>.

I’d rather we do it all at once and not need to maintain two builds. Most/all of our CI/CD is dockerized at this point so there shouldn’t be a huge difference.


On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:23 AM, Tomasz Urbaszek <to...@polidea.com> wrote:
Hi all,

I have to solve a problem with our kubernetes test but for your information
I have never experienced a flaky
or timeouted build on Github Actions. Maybe I am lucky or maybe there's
something different.

If we agree to move to Github Actions, would we like to migrate
incrementally or fully?

Bests,
Tomek

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
wrote:

> No problem on that side - Tomek is using the same scripts we have on Travis
> (and they generally work - I think the last step is to make all the
> tests pass. We have still a number of dependencies between tests and some
> environmental flakiness so that some tests consistently fail in Github
> Actions where they did not fail in Travis. From latest try by Tomek it
> looks like we are 1 test to go (plus some cleanup/setup of project and
> making sure all is stable):
>
> ==== 1 failed, 4030 passed, 119 skipped, 16 warnings in 1207.96s (0:20:07)
> =====
>
> We discussed with Tomek and Kamil that in order to speed it up we might
> want to run our own workers on the GCP account we have - just to test
> quickly how much we can optimise it and I am inclined to agree. If we do it
> this way, the transition might be rather fast.
>
> If we want to use auto-scalable GKE cluster as we originally planned it
> might take more time to setup (similar setup to what I tried with GitLab).
> There we might need to use docker-in-docker to build the CI image with
> latest as first step of build and then use that built image by all
> subsequent steps. But we can do it as the next step - optimising the
> experience.
>
> J.
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Daniel Imberman <
> daniel.imberman@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 on my end as well.
> >
> > @jarek does this affect anything involving breeze? Do GitHub actions have
> > an easy docker/docker-compose based workflow?
> >
> > via Newton Mail [
> >
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2
> > ]
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:28 AM, Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Legal: no I don't think so.
> >
> > Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there to run things on our own
> > "hardware" -
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > <
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> >
> > needs someone with Admin rights to create, and I don't see the Settings
> tab
> > at all.
> >
> > -ash
> >
> > > On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <xd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it for months for my side
> > > projects, and it’s working very well. I believe most of us are quite
> > tired
> > > of the waiting time using Travis CI.
> > >
> > > The only point I would like to remind is whether we need to communicate
> > > with Infra/Legal team for this.
> > >
> > >
> > > XD
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1 for Github actions
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI experience -
> faster
> > is
> > >>> good too!
> > >>>
> > >>> -a
> > >>>
> > >>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
> > >>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so far and
> > >>>> recently it
> > >>>>> seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in Enterrprise
> > >>>> Edition,
> > >>>>> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit disappointed with the
> > >>>> pace and
> > >>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better choice -
> especially
> > >>>> that
> > >>>>> they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem to get
> > >>>>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which makes it possible
> > >>>> for us
> > >>>>> to optimise the experience.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> J.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> J.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > >>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than Travis.
> One
> > >>>> of
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>> main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability to work
> > >>>> on
> > >>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks Github
> > >>>> Actions
> > >>>>>> matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but using them have few big
> > >>>> advantages:
> > >>>>>> - they are Github natives
> > >>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your fork
> > >>>>> automatically
> > >>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> > >>>>>> https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > >>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like information about steps
> > >>>> successes at
> > >>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step failed). The
> > >>>> build
> > >>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions? Any
> > >>>> thoughts
> > >>>>>> about using it?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>> Tomek
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the history behind GitLabCI
> > >>>> (featuring
> > >>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
> > >>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly easily
> > >>>> replicate
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it generally
> > >>>> works, I
> > >>>>>> can
> > >>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main Airflow
> > >>>> project
> > >>>>>> for a
> > >>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no holidays) and
> > >>>> once we
> > >>>>>> see
> > >>>>>>>> it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we can
> > >>>> switch to
> > >>>>> it.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to set it
> > >>>> up ?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Some details
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI +
> > >>>> kubernetes -
> > >>>>>>>> without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this should
> > >>>> be
> > >>>>>> rather easy
> > >>>>>>>> with kind (looking at it next):
> > >>>>>>>> - Working example here - you can take a look and compare the
> > >>>>> UI/how
> > >>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>> is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > >>>>>>>> https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > >>>>>>>> - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still
> > >>>> around 35
> > >>>>>>>> minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I can
> > >>>> play
> > >>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>> memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some
> > >>>> reasonable
> > >>>>>> values now),
> > >>>>>>>> I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
> > >>>>>>>> - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial 24) -
> > >>>> that
> > >>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>> let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from each
> > >>>> other.
> > >>>>>>>> - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have built
> > >>>> in
> > >>>>> retry
> > >>>>>>>> mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures like
> > >>>> that
> > >>>>>>>> - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We should be
> > >>>> way
> > >>>>>> below
> > >>>>>>>> 500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope
> > >>>> calculations.
> > >>>>>> Likely
> > >>>>>>>> well below
> > >>>>>>>> - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko as
> > >>>> I
> > >>>>>>>> originally planned. GCR would require custom authentication
> > >>>> (and
> > >>>>>>>> easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well handle
> > >>>>>> multi-staging
> > >>>>>>>> builds (cache does not work
> > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682).
> > >>>> I
> > >>>>>> updated
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > >>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>> reflect that.
> > >>>>>>>> - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we can
> > >>>> have
> > >>>>>>>> reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's stability
> > >>>> (it has
> > >>>>>> problems
> > >>>>>>>> sometimes)
> > >>>>>>>> - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in any
> > >>>>>> Kubernetes
> > >>>>>>>> cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting for
> > >>>> docker
> > >>>>>> engine
> > >>>>>>>> might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be generally
> > >>>>>> replicable).
> > >>>>>>>> - You can take a look at the current source code in
> > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > >>>>>>>> - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom
> > >>>> builder
> > >>>>>> Docker,
> > >>>>>>>> simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's
> > >>>> mostly
> > >>>>> some
> > >>>>>>>> cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables + gitlab.ci
> > >>>> yaml
> > >>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>> job definitions.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> J.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds from
> > >>>> for PRs
> > >>>>>> :).
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
> > >>>>>>>>> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
> > >>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
> > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > >>>>>>>>> napisał:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI issue
> > >>>> about
> > >>>>> PRs
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of Product
> > >>>>>> Management @
> > >>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in order to
> > >>>>> alleviate
> > >>>>>> any
> > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the whole
> > >>>> system on
> > >>>>>> GitLab
> > >>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for quite some
> > >>>> time
> > >>>>>> (even
> > >>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we will be
> > >>>> able
> > >>>>>> to tune
> > >>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases and compare the experience of
> > >>>> both
> > >>>>>> systems.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will make
> > >>>> sure that
> > >>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes experience
> > >>>> (from my
> > >>>>>> company)
> > >>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure there will be no problems.
> > >>>> However
> > >>>>> I
> > >>>>>> am
> > >>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I am
> > >>>> away. I
> > >>>>>> would also
> > >>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join the
> > >>>> project
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see how easy
> > >>>> it is
> > >>>>>> and how
> > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
> > >>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other problems -
> > >>>>> building
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch.
> > >>>> Currently,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD service. Unfortunately, our
> > >>>> project
> > >>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the documentation is not built properly.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > >>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another way to build documentation. In
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>> ideal
> > >>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation should use the same
> > >>>> environment as
> > >>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to Travis can
> > >>>>> further
> > >>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project will
> > >>>> soon
> > >>>>> have
> > >>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation will also be available in many
> > >>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the design
> > >>>>> studio
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > >>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you to
> > >>>> build a
> > >>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks should be
> > >>>>> combined.
> > >>>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that will be a
> > >>>> real
> > >>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on current events, so it will be
> > >>>> updated
> > >>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now have
> > >>>> problems
> > >>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems in the
> > >>>> future
> > >>>>>> can
> > >>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable
> > >>>> infrastructure
> > >>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another situation which was not
> > >>>> pleasant for
> > >>>>>> me.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of Travis, I
> > >>>> had to
> > >>>>>> wait
> > >>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my changes
> > >>>> in a
> > >>>>>> week,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I did it
> > >>>> over
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked on
> > >>>> Travis by
> > >>>>> my
> > >>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where I described general
> > >>>> architecture
> > >>>>> of
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly - having
> > >>>> GitLab
> > >>>>> CI
> > >>>>>>>>>>> support
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon but
> > >>>> before
> > >>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>>>>> start
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get some comments and opinions
> > >>>> on the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the basic approach with my friend
> > >>>> Kamil
> > >>>>> who
> > >>>>>>>>>>> works at
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we think
> > >>>> will
> > >>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short time.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details and make changes to the
> > >>>> proposal -
> > >>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>> can
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments in the document.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think about it and if we get to some
> > >>>>>> consensus
> > >>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy consensus
> > >>>> as
> > >>>>> this
> > >>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have rather quickly)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> J.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > >>>>> Engineer
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > >>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > >>>> Engineer
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > >>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > >>>> Engineer
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > >>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > >>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jarek Potiuk
> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>
> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>


--

Tomasz Urbaszek
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer

M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>

Unique Tech
Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Tomasz Urbaszek <to...@polidea.com>.

Hi all,

I have to solve a problem with our kubernetes test but for your information
I have never experienced a flaky
or timeouted build on Github Actions. Maybe I am lucky or maybe there's
something different.

If we agree to move to Github Actions, would we like to migrate
incrementally or fully?

Bests,
Tomek

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
wrote:

> No problem on that side - Tomek is using the same scripts we have on Travis
> (and they generally work - I think the last step is to make all the
> tests pass. We have still a number of dependencies between tests and some
> environmental flakiness so that some tests consistently fail in Github
> Actions where they did not fail in Travis. From latest try by Tomek it
> looks like we are 1 test to go (plus some cleanup/setup of project and
> making sure all is stable):
>
> ==== 1 failed, 4030 passed, 119 skipped, 16 warnings in 1207.96s (0:20:07)
> =====
>
> We discussed with Tomek and Kamil that in order to speed it up we might
> want to run our own workers on the GCP account we have - just to test
> quickly how much we can optimise it and I am inclined to agree. If we do it
> this way, the transition might be rather fast.
>
> If we want to use auto-scalable GKE cluster as we originally planned it
> might take more time to setup (similar setup to what I tried with GitLab).
> There we might need to use docker-in-docker to build the CI image with
> latest as first step of build and then use that built image by all
> subsequent steps. But we can do it as the next step - optimising the
> experience.
>
> J.
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Daniel Imberman <
> daniel.imberman@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 on my end as well.
> >
> > @jarek does this affect anything involving breeze? Do GitHub actions have
> > an easy docker/docker-compose based workflow?
> >
> > via Newton Mail [
> >
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2
> > ]
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:28 AM, Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Legal: no I don't think so.
> >
> > Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there to run things on our own
> > "hardware" -
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> > <
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> >
> > needs someone with Admin rights to create, and I don't see the Settings
> tab
> > at all.
> >
> > -ash
> >
> > > On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <xd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it for months for my side
> > > projects, and it’s working very well. I believe most of us are quite
> > tired
> > > of the waiting time using Travis CI.
> > >
> > > The only point I would like to remind is whether we need to communicate
> > > with Infra/Legal team for this.
> > >
> > >
> > > XD
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1 for Github actions
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI experience -
> faster
> > is
> > >>> good too!
> > >>>
> > >>> -a
> > >>>
> > >>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
> > >>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> > >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so far and
> > >>>> recently it
> > >>>>> seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in Enterrprise
> > >>>> Edition,
> > >>>>> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit disappointed with the
> > >>>> pace and
> > >>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better choice -
> especially
> > >>>> that
> > >>>>> they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem to get
> > >>>>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which makes it possible
> > >>>> for us
> > >>>>> to optimise the experience.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> J.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> J.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > >>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than Travis.
> One
> > >>>> of
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>> main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability to work
> > >>>> on
> > >>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks Github
> > >>>> Actions
> > >>>>>> matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but using them have few big
> > >>>> advantages:
> > >>>>>> - they are Github natives
> > >>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your fork
> > >>>>> automatically
> > >>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> > >>>>>> https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > >>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like information about steps
> > >>>> successes at
> > >>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step failed). The
> > >>>> build
> > >>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions? Any
> > >>>> thoughts
> > >>>>>> about using it?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>> Tomek
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the history behind GitLabCI
> > >>>> (featuring
> > >>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
> > >>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly easily
> > >>>> replicate
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it generally
> > >>>> works, I
> > >>>>>> can
> > >>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main Airflow
> > >>>> project
> > >>>>>> for a
> > >>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no holidays) and
> > >>>> once we
> > >>>>>> see
> > >>>>>>>> it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we can
> > >>>> switch to
> > >>>>> it.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to set it
> > >>>> up ?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Some details
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI +
> > >>>> kubernetes -
> > >>>>>>>> without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this should
> > >>>> be
> > >>>>>> rather easy
> > >>>>>>>> with kind (looking at it next):
> > >>>>>>>> - Working example here - you can take a look and compare the
> > >>>>> UI/how
> > >>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>> is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > >>>>>>>> https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > >>>>>>>> - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still
> > >>>> around 35
> > >>>>>>>> minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I can
> > >>>> play
> > >>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>> memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some
> > >>>> reasonable
> > >>>>>> values now),
> > >>>>>>>> I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
> > >>>>>>>> - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial 24) -
> > >>>> that
> > >>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>> let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from each
> > >>>> other.
> > >>>>>>>> - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have built
> > >>>> in
> > >>>>> retry
> > >>>>>>>> mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures like
> > >>>> that
> > >>>>>>>> - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We should be
> > >>>> way
> > >>>>>> below
> > >>>>>>>> 500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope
> > >>>> calculations.
> > >>>>>> Likely
> > >>>>>>>> well below
> > >>>>>>>> - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko as
> > >>>> I
> > >>>>>>>> originally planned. GCR would require custom authentication
> > >>>> (and
> > >>>>>>>> easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well handle
> > >>>>>> multi-staging
> > >>>>>>>> builds (cache does not work
> > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682).
> > >>>> I
> > >>>>>> updated
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > >>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>> reflect that.
> > >>>>>>>> - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we can
> > >>>> have
> > >>>>>>>> reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's stability
> > >>>> (it has
> > >>>>>> problems
> > >>>>>>>> sometimes)
> > >>>>>>>> - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in any
> > >>>>>> Kubernetes
> > >>>>>>>> cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting for
> > >>>> docker
> > >>>>>> engine
> > >>>>>>>> might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be generally
> > >>>>>> replicable).
> > >>>>>>>> - You can take a look at the current source code in
> > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > >>>>>>>> - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom
> > >>>> builder
> > >>>>>> Docker,
> > >>>>>>>> simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's
> > >>>> mostly
> > >>>>> some
> > >>>>>>>> cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables + gitlab.ci
> > >>>> yaml
> > >>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>> job definitions.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> J.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds from
> > >>>> for PRs
> > >>>>>> :).
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
> > >>>>>>>>> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > >>>>>>>>> J.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
> > >>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
> > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > >>>>>>>>> napisał:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI issue
> > >>>> about
> > >>>>> PRs
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of Product
> > >>>>>> Management @
> > >>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in order to
> > >>>>> alleviate
> > >>>>>> any
> > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the whole
> > >>>> system on
> > >>>>>> GitLab
> > >>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for quite some
> > >>>> time
> > >>>>>> (even
> > >>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we will be
> > >>>> able
> > >>>>>> to tune
> > >>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases and compare the experience of
> > >>>> both
> > >>>>>> systems.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will make
> > >>>> sure that
> > >>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes experience
> > >>>> (from my
> > >>>>>> company)
> > >>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure there will be no problems.
> > >>>> However
> > >>>>> I
> > >>>>>> am
> > >>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I am
> > >>>> away. I
> > >>>>>> would also
> > >>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join the
> > >>>> project
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see how easy
> > >>>> it is
> > >>>>>> and how
> > >>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> J.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
> > >>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other problems -
> > >>>>> building
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch.
> > >>>> Currently,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD service. Unfortunately, our
> > >>>> project
> > >>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the documentation is not built properly.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > >>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another way to build documentation. In
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>> ideal
> > >>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation should use the same
> > >>>> environment as
> > >>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to Travis can
> > >>>>> further
> > >>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project will
> > >>>> soon
> > >>>>> have
> > >>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation will also be available in many
> > >>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the design
> > >>>>> studio
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > >>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you to
> > >>>> build a
> > >>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks should be
> > >>>>> combined.
> > >>>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that will be a
> > >>>> real
> > >>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on current events, so it will be
> > >>>> updated
> > >>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now have
> > >>>> problems
> > >>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems in the
> > >>>> future
> > >>>>>> can
> > >>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable
> > >>>> infrastructure
> > >>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another situation which was not
> > >>>> pleasant for
> > >>>>>> me.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of Travis, I
> > >>>> had to
> > >>>>>> wait
> > >>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my changes
> > >>>> in a
> > >>>>>> week,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I did it
> > >>>> over
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked on
> > >>>> Travis by
> > >>>>> my
> > >>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where I described general
> > >>>> architecture
> > >>>>> of
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly - having
> > >>>> GitLab
> > >>>>> CI
> > >>>>>>>>>>> support
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon but
> > >>>> before
> > >>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>>>>> start
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get some comments and opinions
> > >>>> on the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the basic approach with my friend
> > >>>> Kamil
> > >>>>> who
> > >>>>>>>>>>> works at
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we think
> > >>>> will
> > >>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short time.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details and make changes to the
> > >>>> proposal -
> > >>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>> can
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments in the document.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think about it and if we get to some
> > >>>>>> consensus
> > >>>>>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy consensus
> > >>>> as
> > >>>>> this
> > >>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have rather quickly)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> J.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > >>>>> Engineer
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > >>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > >>>> Engineer
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > >>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > >>>> Engineer
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > >>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> > >>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jarek Potiuk
> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>
> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>


-- 

Tomasz Urbaszek
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer

M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>

Unique Tech
Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>.

No problem on that side - Tomek is using the same scripts we have on Travis
(and they generally work - I think the last step is to make all the
tests pass. We have still a number of dependencies between tests and some
environmental flakiness so that some tests consistently fail in Github
Actions where they did not fail in Travis. From latest try by Tomek it
looks like we are 1 test to go (plus some cleanup/setup of project and
making sure all is stable):

==== 1 failed, 4030 passed, 119 skipped, 16 warnings in 1207.96s (0:20:07)
=====

We discussed with Tomek and Kamil that in order to speed it up we might
want to run our own workers on the GCP account we have - just to test
quickly how much we can optimise it and I am inclined to agree. If we do it
this way, the transition might be rather fast.

If we want to use auto-scalable GKE cluster as we originally planned it
might take more time to setup (similar setup to what I tried with GitLab).
There we might need to use docker-in-docker to build the CI image with
latest as first step of build and then use that built image by all
subsequent steps. But we can do it as the next step - optimising the
experience.

J.

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM Daniel Imberman <da...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 on my end as well.
>
> @jarek does this affect anything involving breeze? Do GitHub actions have
> an easy docker/docker-compose based workflow?
>
> via Newton Mail [
> https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2
> ]
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:28 AM, Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org> wrote:
> Legal: no I don't think so.
>
> Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there to run things on our own
> "hardware" -
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets
> <
> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets>
> needs someone with Admin rights to create, and I don't see the Settings tab
> at all.
>
> -ash
>
> > On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <xd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it for months for my side
> > projects, and it’s working very well. I believe most of us are quite
> tired
> > of the waiting time using Travis CI.
> >
> > The only point I would like to remind is whether we need to communicate
> > with Infra/Legal team for this.
> >
> >
> > XD
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 for Github actions
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI experience - faster
> is
> >>> good too!
> >>>
> >>> -a
> >>>
> >>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
> >>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so far and
> >>>> recently it
> >>>>> seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in Enterrprise
> >>>> Edition,
> >>>>> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit disappointed with the
> >>>> pace and
> >>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better choice - especially
> >>>> that
> >>>>> they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem to get
> >>>>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which makes it possible
> >>>> for us
> >>>>> to optimise the experience.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> J.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> J.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> >>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than Travis. One
> >>>> of
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>> main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability to work
> >>>> on
> >>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks Github
> >>>> Actions
> >>>>>> matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but using them have few big
> >>>> advantages:
> >>>>>> - they are Github natives
> >>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your fork
> >>>>> automatically
> >>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> >>>>>> https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> >>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like information about steps
> >>>> successes at
> >>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step failed). The
> >>>> build
> >>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions? Any
> >>>> thoughts
> >>>>>> about using it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>> Tomek
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the history behind GitLabCI
> >>>> (featuring
> >>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
> >>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly easily
> >>>> replicate
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it generally
> >>>> works, I
> >>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main Airflow
> >>>> project
> >>>>>> for a
> >>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no holidays) and
> >>>> once we
> >>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>> it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we can
> >>>> switch to
> >>>>> it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to set it
> >>>> up ?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Some details
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI +
> >>>> kubernetes -
> >>>>>>>> without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this should
> >>>> be
> >>>>>> rather easy
> >>>>>>>> with kind (looking at it next):
> >>>>>>>> - Working example here - you can take a look and compare the
> >>>>> UI/how
> >>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>> is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> >>>>>>>> https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> >>>>>>>> - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still
> >>>> around 35
> >>>>>>>> minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I can
> >>>> play
> >>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some
> >>>> reasonable
> >>>>>> values now),
> >>>>>>>> I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
> >>>>>>>> - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial 24) -
> >>>> that
> >>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>> let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from each
> >>>> other.
> >>>>>>>> - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have built
> >>>> in
> >>>>> retry
> >>>>>>>> mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures like
> >>>> that
> >>>>>>>> - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We should be
> >>>> way
> >>>>>> below
> >>>>>>>> 500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope
> >>>> calculations.
> >>>>>> Likely
> >>>>>>>> well below
> >>>>>>>> - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko as
> >>>> I
> >>>>>>>> originally planned. GCR would require custom authentication
> >>>> (and
> >>>>>>>> easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well handle
> >>>>>> multi-staging
> >>>>>>>> builds (cache does not work
> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682).
> >>>> I
> >>>>>> updated
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> reflect that.
> >>>>>>>> - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we can
> >>>> have
> >>>>>>>> reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's stability
> >>>> (it has
> >>>>>> problems
> >>>>>>>> sometimes)
> >>>>>>>> - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in any
> >>>>>> Kubernetes
> >>>>>>>> cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting for
> >>>> docker
> >>>>>> engine
> >>>>>>>> might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be generally
> >>>>>> replicable).
> >>>>>>>> - You can take a look at the current source code in
> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> >>>>>>>> - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom
> >>>> builder
> >>>>>> Docker,
> >>>>>>>> simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's
> >>>> mostly
> >>>>> some
> >>>>>>>> cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables + gitlab.ci
> >>>> yaml
> >>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> job definitions.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> J.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds from
> >>>> for PRs
> >>>>>> :).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
> >>>>>>>>> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> >>>>>>>>> J.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
> >>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
> >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> >>>>>>>>> napisał:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI issue
> >>>> about
> >>>>> PRs
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of Product
> >>>>>> Management @
> >>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in order to
> >>>>> alleviate
> >>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the whole
> >>>> system on
> >>>>>> GitLab
> >>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for quite some
> >>>> time
> >>>>>> (even
> >>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we will be
> >>>> able
> >>>>>> to tune
> >>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases and compare the experience of
> >>>> both
> >>>>>> systems.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will make
> >>>> sure that
> >>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes experience
> >>>> (from my
> >>>>>> company)
> >>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure there will be no problems.
> >>>> However
> >>>>> I
> >>>>>> am
> >>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I am
> >>>> away. I
> >>>>>> would also
> >>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join the
> >>>> project
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see how easy
> >>>> it is
> >>>>>> and how
> >>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> J.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
> >>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other problems -
> >>>>> building
> >>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch.
> >>>> Currently,
> >>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD service. Unfortunately, our
> >>>> project
> >>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the documentation is not built properly.
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> >>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another way to build documentation. In
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> ideal
> >>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation should use the same
> >>>> environment as
> >>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to Travis can
> >>>>> further
> >>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>> https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project will
> >>>> soon
> >>>>> have
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation will also be available in many
> >>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the design
> >>>>> studio
> >>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> >>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you to
> >>>> build a
> >>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks should be
> >>>>> combined.
> >>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that will be a
> >>>> real
> >>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on current events, so it will be
> >>>> updated
> >>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now have
> >>>> problems
> >>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems in the
> >>>> future
> >>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable
> >>>> infrastructure
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another situation which was not
> >>>> pleasant for
> >>>>>> me.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of Travis, I
> >>>> had to
> >>>>>> wait
> >>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my changes
> >>>> in a
> >>>>>> week,
> >>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I did it
> >>>> over
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked on
> >>>> Travis by
> >>>>> my
> >>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> >>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where I described general
> >>>> architecture
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly - having
> >>>> GitLab
> >>>>> CI
> >>>>>>>>>>> support
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon but
> >>>> before
> >>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>> start
> >>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get some comments and opinions
> >>>> on the
> >>>>>>>>>>> proposed
> >>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the basic approach with my friend
> >>>> Kamil
> >>>>> who
> >>>>>>>>>>> works at
> >>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we think
> >>>> will
> >>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details and make changes to the
> >>>> proposal -
> >>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments in the document.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think about it and if we get to some
> >>>>>> consensus
> >>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy consensus
> >>>> as
> >>>>> this
> >>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have rather quickly)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> J.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> >>>>> Engineer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> >>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> >>>> Engineer
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> >>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> >>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> >>>> Engineer
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> >>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> >>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> >>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jarek Potiuk
> >>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> >>>>>
> >>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> >>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> >>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>



-- 

Jarek Potiuk
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer

M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Daniel Imberman <da...@gmail.com>.

+1 on my end as well.

@jarek does this affect anything involving breeze? Do GitHub actions have an easy docker/docker-compose based workflow?

via Newton Mail [https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.5&source=email_footer_2]
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:28 AM, Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org> wrote:
Legal: no I don't think so.

Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there to run things on our own "hardware" - https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets <https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets> needs someone with Admin rights to create, and I don't see the Settings tab at all.

-ash

> On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <xd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it for months for my side
> projects, and it’s working very well. I believe most of us are quite tired
> of the waiting time using Travis CI.
>
> The only point I would like to remind is whether we need to communicate
> with Infra/Legal team for this.
>
>
> XD
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 for Github actions
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI experience - faster is
>>> good too!
>>>
>>> -a
>>>
>>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
>>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so far and
>>>> recently it
>>>>> seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in Enterrprise
>>>> Edition,
>>>>> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit disappointed with the
>>>> pace and
>>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better choice - especially
>>>> that
>>>>> they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem to get
>>>>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
>>>>>
>>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which makes it possible
>>>> for us
>>>>> to optimise the experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> J.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> J.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
>>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than Travis. One
>>>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>>> main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability to work
>>>> on
>>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks Github
>>>> Actions
>>>>>> matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but using them have few big
>>>> advantages:
>>>>>> - they are Github natives
>>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your fork
>>>>> automatically
>>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
>>>>>> https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
>>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like information about steps
>>>> successes at
>>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step failed). The
>>>> build
>>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions? Any
>>>> thoughts
>>>>>> about using it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Tomek
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the history behind GitLabCI
>>>> (featuring
>>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
>>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly easily
>>>> replicate
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it generally
>>>> works, I
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main Airflow
>>>> project
>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no holidays) and
>>>> once we
>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>> it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we can
>>>> switch to
>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to set it
>>>> up ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some details
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI +
>>>> kubernetes -
>>>>>>>> without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this should
>>>> be
>>>>>> rather easy
>>>>>>>> with kind (looking at it next):
>>>>>>>> - Working example here - you can take a look and compare the
>>>>> UI/how
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
>>>>>>>> https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
>>>>>>>> - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still
>>>> around 35
>>>>>>>> minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I can
>>>> play
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some
>>>> reasonable
>>>>>> values now),
>>>>>>>> I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
>>>>>>>> - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial 24) -
>>>> that
>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from each
>>>> other.
>>>>>>>> - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have built
>>>> in
>>>>> retry
>>>>>>>> mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures like
>>>> that
>>>>>>>> - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We should be
>>>> way
>>>>>> below
>>>>>>>> 500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope
>>>> calculations.
>>>>>> Likely
>>>>>>>> well below
>>>>>>>> - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko as
>>>> I
>>>>>>>> originally planned. GCR would require custom authentication
>>>> (and
>>>>>>>> easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well handle
>>>>>> multi-staging
>>>>>>>> builds (cache does not work
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682).
>>>> I
>>>>>> updated
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> reflect that.
>>>>>>>> - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we can
>>>> have
>>>>>>>> reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's stability
>>>> (it has
>>>>>> problems
>>>>>>>> sometimes)
>>>>>>>> - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in any
>>>>>> Kubernetes
>>>>>>>> cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting for
>>>> docker
>>>>>> engine
>>>>>>>> might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be generally
>>>>>> replicable).
>>>>>>>> - You can take a look at the current source code in
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
>>>>>>>> - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom
>>>> builder
>>>>>> Docker,
>>>>>>>> simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's
>>>> mostly
>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables + gitlab.ci
>>>> yaml
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> job definitions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> J.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
>>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds from
>>>> for PRs
>>>>>> :).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
>>>>>>>>> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
>>>>>>>>> J.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
>>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
>>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
>>>>>>>>> napisał:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI issue
>>>> about
>>>>> PRs
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of Product
>>>>>> Management @
>>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in order to
>>>>> alleviate
>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the whole
>>>> system on
>>>>>> GitLab
>>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for quite some
>>>> time
>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we will be
>>>> able
>>>>>> to tune
>>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases and compare the experience of
>>>> both
>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will make
>>>> sure that
>>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes experience
>>>> (from my
>>>>>> company)
>>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure there will be no problems.
>>>> However
>>>>> I
>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I am
>>>> away. I
>>>>>> would also
>>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join the
>>>> project
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see how easy
>>>> it is
>>>>>> and how
>>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to be.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> J.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
>>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other problems -
>>>>> building
>>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch.
>>>> Currently,
>>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD service. Unfortunately, our
>>>> project
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the documentation is not built properly.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
>>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another way to build documentation. In
>>>> the
>>>>>> ideal
>>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation should use the same
>>>> environment as
>>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to Travis can
>>>>> further
>>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development opportunities.
>>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project will
>>>> soon
>>>>> have
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation will also be available in many
>>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the design
>>>>> studio
>>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you to
>>>> build a
>>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks should be
>>>>> combined.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that will be a
>>>> real
>>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on current events, so it will be
>>>> updated
>>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now have
>>>> problems
>>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems in the
>>>> future
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable
>>>> infrastructure
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another situation which was not
>>>> pleasant for
>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of Travis, I
>>>> had to
>>>>>> wait
>>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my changes
>>>> in a
>>>>>> week,
>>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I did it
>>>> over
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked on
>>>> Travis by
>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
>>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where I described general
>>>> architecture
>>>>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly - having
>>>> GitLab
>>>>> CI
>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon but
>>>> before
>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get some comments and opinions
>>>> on the
>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the basic approach with my friend
>>>> Kamil
>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>> works at
>>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we think
>>>> will
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details and make changes to the
>>>> proposal -
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments in the document.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think about it and if we get to some
>>>>>> consensus
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy consensus
>>>> as
>>>>> this
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have rather quickly)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> J.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
>>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
>>>>> Engineer
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
>>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
>>>> Engineer
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
>>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
>>>> Engineer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
>>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
>>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>>>>>
>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
>>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>>>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org>.

Legal: no I don't think so.

Infra: possibly yes to get secrets in there to run things on our own "hardware" - https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets <https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/creating-and-using-encrypted-secrets> needs someone with Admin rights to create, and I don't see the Settings tab at all.

-ash

> On 10 Dec 2019, at 02:46, Deng Xiaodong <xd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> +1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it for months for my side
> projects, and it’s working very well. I believe most of us are quite tired
> of the waiting time using Travis CI.
> 
> The only point I would like to remind is whether we need to communicate
> with Infra/Legal team for this.
> 
> 
> XD
> 
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> +1 for Github actions
>> 
>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI experience - faster is
>>> good too!
>>> 
>>> -a
>>> 
>>> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
>>> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> +1 on GitHub Actions.
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so far and
>>>> recently it
>>>>> seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in Enterrprise
>>>> Edition,
>>>>> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit disappointed with the
>>>> pace and
>>>>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better choice - especially
>>>> that
>>>>> they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem to get
>>>>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which makes it possible
>>>> for us
>>>>> to optimise the experience.
>>>>> 
>>>>> J.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> J.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
>>>>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than Travis. One
>>>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>>> main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability to work
>>>> on
>>>>>> self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks Github
>>>> Actions
>>>>>> matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Github Actions are still growing but using them have few big
>>>> advantages:
>>>>>> - they are Github natives
>>>>>> - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your fork
>>>>> automatically
>>>>>> - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
>>>>>> https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
>>>>>> My impression is quite good. I like information about steps
>>>> successes at
>>>>>> the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step failed). The
>>>> build
>>>>>> log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions? Any
>>>> thoughts
>>>>>> about using it?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Tomek
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> FYI: Interesting article about the history behind GitLabCI
>>>> (featuring
>>>>>>> Kamil, my friend).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
>>>> <Ja...@polidea.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly easily
>>>> replicate
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it generally
>>>> works, I
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main Airflow
>>>> project
>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>> few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no holidays) and
>>>> once we
>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>> it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we can
>>>> switch to
>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to set it
>>>> up ?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Some details
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI +
>>>> kubernetes -
>>>>>>>>   without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this should
>>>> be
>>>>>> rather easy
>>>>>>>>   with kind (looking at it next):
>>>>>>>>   - Working example here - you can take a look and compare the
>>>>> UI/how
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>   is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
>>>>>>>>   https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
>>>>>>>>   - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still
>>>> around 35
>>>>>>>>   minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I can
>>>> play
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>   memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some
>>>> reasonable
>>>>>> values now),
>>>>>>>>   I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
>>>>>>>>   - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial 24) -
>>>> that
>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>   let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from each
>>>> other.
>>>>>>>>   - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have built
>>>> in
>>>>> retry
>>>>>>>>   mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures like
>>>> that
>>>>>>>>   - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We should be
>>>> way
>>>>>> below
>>>>>>>>   500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope
>>>> calculations.
>>>>>> Likely
>>>>>>>>   well below
>>>>>>>>   - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko as
>>>> I
>>>>>>>>   originally planned. GCR would require custom authentication
>>>> (and
>>>>>>>>   easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well handle
>>>>>> multi-staging
>>>>>>>>   builds (cache does not work
>>>>>>>>   https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682).
>>>> I
>>>>>> updated
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>   reflect that.
>>>>>>>>   - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we can
>>>> have
>>>>>>>>   reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's stability
>>>> (it has
>>>>>> problems
>>>>>>>>   sometimes)
>>>>>>>>   - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in any
>>>>>> Kubernetes
>>>>>>>>   cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting for
>>>> docker
>>>>>> engine
>>>>>>>>   might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be generally
>>>>>> replicable).
>>>>>>>>   - You can take a look at the current source code in
>>>>>>>>   https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
>>>>>>>>   - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom
>>>> builder
>>>>>> Docker,
>>>>>>>>   simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's
>>>> mostly
>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>   cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables + gitlab.ci
>>>> yaml
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>   job definitions.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> J.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
>>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds from
>>>> for PRs
>>>>>> :).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
>>>>>>>>> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
>>>>>>>>> J.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer
>>>>>>>>> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
>>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
>>>>>>>>> napisał:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI issue
>>>> about
>>>>> PRs
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of Product
>>>>>> Management @
>>>>>>>>>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in order to
>>>>> alleviate
>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the whole
>>>> system on
>>>>>> GitLab
>>>>>>>>>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for quite some
>>>> time
>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>>>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we will be
>>>> able
>>>>>> to tune
>>>>>>>>>> it according to real use cases and compare the experience of
>>>> both
>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will make
>>>> sure that
>>>>>>>>>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes experience
>>>> (from my
>>>>>> company)
>>>>>>>>>> who can take over and make sure there will be no problems.
>>>> However
>>>>> I
>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I am
>>>> away. I
>>>>>> would also
>>>>>>>>>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join the
>>>> project
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see how easy
>>>> it is
>>>>>> and how
>>>>>>>>>> maintenance free it is going to be.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> J.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
>>>>>> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other problems -
>>>>> building
>>>>>>>>>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch.
>>>> Currently,
>>>>>>>>>>> building is done using the RTD service. Unfortunately, our
>>>> project
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> too large and often the documentation is not built properly.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
>>>>>>>>>>> We should think about another way to build documentation. In
>>>> the
>>>>>> ideal
>>>>>>>>>>> world, building documentation should use the same
>>>> environment as
>>>>>>>>>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to Travis can
>>>>> further
>>>>>>>>>>> reduce our development opportunities.
>>>>>>>>>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project will
>>>> soon
>>>>> have
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> website and our documentation will also be available in many
>>>>>>>>>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the design
>>>>> studio
>>>>>>>>>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you to
>>>> build a
>>>>>>>>>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks should be
>>>>> combined.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that will be a
>>>> real
>>>>>>>>>>> support for the community on current events, so it will be
>>>> updated
>>>>>>>>>>> frequently.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now have
>>>> problems
>>>>>>>>>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems in the
>>>> future
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable
>>>> infrastructure
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> the project for a long time.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to share another situation which was not
>>>> pleasant for
>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of Travis, I
>>>> had to
>>>>>> wait
>>>>>>>>>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my changes
>>>> in a
>>>>>> week,
>>>>>>>>>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I did it
>>>> over
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked on
>>>> Travis by
>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>> jobs.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
>>>>>> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I prepared a short docs where I described general
>>>> architecture
>>>>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly - having
>>>> GitLab
>>>>> CI
>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>> and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon but
>>>> before
>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>>>>>> doing it, I would like to get some comments and opinions
>>>> on the
>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>> approach. I discussed the basic approach with my friend
>>>> Kamil
>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>> works at
>>>>>>>>>>>> GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we think
>>>> will
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> achievable in fairly short time.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss details and make changes to the
>>>> proposal -
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss it here or as comments in the document.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what people think about it and if we get to some
>>>>>> consensus
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy consensus
>>>> as
>>>>> this
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> something we should have rather quickly)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments!
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> J.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
>>>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
>>>>> Engineer
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
>>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
>>>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
>>>> Engineer
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
>>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
>>>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
>>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
>>>> Engineer
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
>>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
>>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
>>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
>>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
>>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jarek Potiuk
>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>>>>> 
>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
>>>>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Deng Xiaodong <xd...@gmail.com>.

+1 for GitHub Actions. I have been using it for months for my side
projects, and it’s working very well. I believe most of us are quite tired
of the waiting time using Travis CI.

The only point I would like to remind is whether we need to communicate
with Infra/Legal team for this.


XD

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 06:49 Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for Github actions
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI experience - faster is
> > good too!
> >
> > -a
> >
> > On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
> > aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > >+1 on GitHub Actions.
> > >
> > >On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so far and
> > >recently it
> > >> seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in Enterrprise
> > >Edition,
> > >> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit disappointed with the
> > >pace and
> > >> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better choice - especially
> > >that
> > >> they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem to get
> > >> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> > >>
> > >> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which makes it possible
> > >for us
> > >> to optimise the experience.
> > >>
> > >> J.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> J.
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > >> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi all,
> > >> >
> > >> > It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than Travis. One
> > >of
> > >> the
> > >> > main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability to work
> > >on
> > >> > self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks Github
> > >Actions
> > >> > matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
> > >> >
> > >> > Github Actions are still growing but using them have few big
> > >advantages:
> > >> > - they are Github natives
> > >> > - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your fork
> > >> automatically
> > >> > - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
> > >> >
> > >> > I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> > >> > https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > >> > My impression is quite good. I like information about steps
> > >successes at
> > >> > the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step failed). The
> > >build
> > >> > log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
> > >> >
> > >> > Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions? Any
> > >thoughts
> > >> > about using it?
> > >> >
> > >> > Best,
> > >> > Tomek
> > >> >
> > >> > On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >> > > FYI: Interesting article about the history behind GitLabCI
> > >(featuring
> > >> > > Kamil, my friend).
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
> > ><Ja...@polidea.com>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly easily
> > >replicate
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it generally
> > >works, I
> > >> > can
> > >> > > > plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main Airflow
> > >project
> > >> > for a
> > >> > > > few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no holidays) and
> > >once we
> > >> > see
> > >> > > > it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we can
> > >switch to
> > >> it.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to set it
> > >up ?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Some details
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >    - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI +
> > >kubernetes -
> > >> > > >    without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this should
> > >be
> > >> > rather easy
> > >> > > >    with kind (looking at it next):
> > >> > > >    - Working example here - you can take a look and compare the
> > >> UI/how
> > >> > it
> > >> > > >    is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > >> > > >    https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > >> > > >    - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still
> > >around 35
> > >> > > >    minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I can
> > >play
> > >> > with
> > >> > > >    memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some
> > >reasonable
> > >> > values now),
> > >> > > >    I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
> > >> > > >    - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial 24) -
> > >that
> > >> > should
> > >> > > >    let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from each
> > >other.
> > >> > > >    - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have built
> > >in
> > >> retry
> > >> > > >    mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures like
> > >that
> > >> > > >    - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We should be
> > >way
> > >> > below
> > >> > > >    500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope
> > >calculations.
> > >> > Likely
> > >> > > >    well below
> > >> > > >    - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko as
> > >I
> > >> > > >    originally planned. GCR would require custom authentication
> > >(and
> > >> > > >    easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well handle
> > >> > multi-staging
> > >> > > >    builds (cache does not work
> > >> > > >    https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682).
> > >I
> > >> > updated
> > >> > > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > >> > to
> > >> > > >    reflect that.
> > >> > > >    - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we can
> > >have
> > >> > > >    reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's stability
> > >(it has
> > >> > problems
> > >> > > >    sometimes)
> > >> > > >    - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in any
> > >> > Kubernetes
> > >> > > >    cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting for
> > >docker
> > >> > engine
> > >> > > >    might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be generally
> > >> > replicable).
> > >> > > >    - You can take a look at the current source code in
> > >> > > >    https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > >> > > >    - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom
> > >builder
> > >> > Docker,
> > >> > > >    simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's
> > >mostly
> > >> some
> > >> > > >    cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables + gitlab.ci
> > >yaml
> > >> > with
> > >> > > >    job definitions.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > J.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > >> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds from
> > >for PRs
> > >> > :).
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
> > >> > > >> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > >> > > >> J.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Principal Software Engineer
> > >> > > >> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
> > >> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > >> > > >> napisał:
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI issue
> > >about
> > >> PRs
> > >> > and
> > >> > > >>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of Product
> > >> > Management @
> > >> > > >>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough.
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in order to
> > >> alleviate
> > >> > any
> > >> > > >>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the whole
> > >system on
> > >> > GitLab
> > >> > > >>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for quite some
> > >time
> > >> > (even
> > >> > > >>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we will be
> > >able
> > >> > to tune
> > >> > > >>> it according to real use cases and compare the experience of
> > >both
> > >> > systems.
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will make
> > >sure that
> > >> > > >>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes experience
> > >(from my
> > >> > company)
> > >> > > >>> who can take over and make sure there will be no problems.
> > >However
> > >> I
> > >> > am
> > >> > > >>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I am
> > >away. I
> > >> > would also
> > >> > > >>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join the
> > >project
> > >> and
> > >> > > >>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see how easy
> > >it is
> > >> > and how
> > >> > > >>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> J.
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
> > >> > kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > >> > > >>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other problems -
> > >> building
> > >> > > >>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch.
> > >Currently,
> > >> > > >>>> building is done using the RTD service. Unfortunately, our
> > >project
> > >> > is
> > >> > > >>>> too large and often the documentation is not built properly.
> > >> > > >>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > >> > > >>>> We should think about another way to build documentation. In
> > >the
> > >> > ideal
> > >> > > >>>> world, building documentation should use the same
> > >environment as
> > >> > > >>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to Travis can
> > >> further
> > >> > > >>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > >> > > >>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> >
> > >https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project will
> > >soon
> > >> have
> > >> > a
> > >> > > >>>> website and our documentation will also be available in many
> > >> > > >>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the design
> > >> studio
> > >> > > >>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > >> > > >>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you to
> > >build a
> > >> > > >>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks should be
> > >> combined.
> > >> > I
> > >> > > >>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that will be a
> > >real
> > >> > > >>>> support for the community on current events, so it will be
> > >updated
> > >> > > >>>> frequently.
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now have
> > >problems
> > >> > > >>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems in the
> > >future
> > >> > can
> > >> > > >>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable
> > >infrastructure
> > >> > for
> > >> > > >>>> the project for a long time.
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>> I would like to share another situation which was not
> > >pleasant for
> > >> > me.
> > >> > > >>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of Travis, I
> > >had to
> > >> > wait
> > >> > > >>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my changes
> > >in a
> > >> > week,
> > >> > > >>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I did it
> > >over
> > >> the
> > >> > > >>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked on
> > >Travis by
> > >> my
> > >> > > >>>> jobs.
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > >> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > >> > > >>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> > Hello Everyone,
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> > I prepared a short docs where I described general
> > >architecture
> > >> of
> > >> > the
> > >> > > >>>> > solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly - having
> > >GitLab
> > >> CI
> > >> > > >>>> support
> > >> > > >>>> > and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> > I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon but
> > >before
> > >> I
> > >> > > >>>> start
> > >> > > >>>> > doing it, I would like to get some comments and opinions
> > >on the
> > >> > > >>>> proposed
> > >> > > >>>> > approach. I discussed the basic approach with my friend
> > >Kamil
> > >> who
> > >> > > >>>> works at
> > >> > > >>>> > GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we think
> > >will
> > >> be
> > >> > > >>>> > achievable in fairly short time.
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> > I am happy to discuss details and make changes to the
> > >proposal -
> > >> > we
> > >> > > >>>> can
> > >> > > >>>> > discuss it here or as comments in the document.
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> > Let's see what people think about it and if we get to some
> > >> > consensus
> > >> > > >>>> we
> > >> > > >>>> > might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy consensus
> > >as
> > >> this
> > >> > is
> > >> > > >>>> > something we should have rather quickly)
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> > Looking forward to your comments!
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> > J.
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> > --
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> > Jarek Potiuk
> > >> > > >>>> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > >> Engineer
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >> > > >>>> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> --
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> Jarek Potiuk
> > >> > > >>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > >Engineer
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >> > > >>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > >> > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > >Engineer
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >> > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Jarek Potiuk
> > >> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >> > >
> > >> > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Jarek Potiuk
> > >> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >>
> > >> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >>
> >
>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by "Driesprong, Fokko" <fo...@driesprong.frl>.

+1 for Github Actions.

I've noticed that Spark is also using this:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/26644

Cheers, Fokko

Op di 10 dec. 2019 om 11:45 schreef Kamil Breguła <kamil.bregula@polidea.com
>:

> +1 for Github Actions
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 11:49 PM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 for Github actions
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI experience - faster
> is
> > > good too!
> > >
> > > -a
> > >
> > > On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
> > > aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >+1 on GitHub Actions.
> > > >
> > > >On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com
> >
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so far and
> > > >recently it
> > > >> seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in Enterrprise
> > > >Edition,
> > > >> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit disappointed with the
> > > >pace and
> > > >> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better choice - especially
> > > >that
> > > >> they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem to get
> > > >> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> > > >>
> > > >> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which makes it possible
> > > >for us
> > > >> to optimise the experience.
> > > >>
> > > >> J.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> J.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > > >> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Hi all,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than Travis.
> One
> > > >of
> > > >> the
> > > >> > main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability to work
> > > >on
> > > >> > self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks Github
> > > >Actions
> > > >> > matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Github Actions are still growing but using them have few big
> > > >advantages:
> > > >> > - they are Github natives
> > > >> > - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your fork
> > > >> automatically
> > > >> > - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> > > >> > https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > > >> > My impression is quite good. I like information about steps
> > > >successes at
> > > >> > the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step failed). The
> > > >build
> > > >> > log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions? Any
> > > >thoughts
> > > >> > about using it?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Best,
> > > >> > Tomek
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > >wrote:
> > > >> > > FYI: Interesting article about the history behind GitLabCI
> > > >(featuring
> > > >> > > Kamil, my friend).
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
> > > ><Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly easily
> > > >replicate
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it generally
> > > >works, I
> > > >> > can
> > > >> > > > plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main Airflow
> > > >project
> > > >> > for a
> > > >> > > > few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no holidays) and
> > > >once we
> > > >> > see
> > > >> > > > it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we can
> > > >switch to
> > > >> it.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to set it
> > > >up ?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Some details
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >    - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI +
> > > >kubernetes -
> > > >> > > >    without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this should
> > > >be
> > > >> > rather easy
> > > >> > > >    with kind (looking at it next):
> > > >> > > >    - Working example here - you can take a look and compare
> the
> > > >> UI/how
> > > >> > it
> > > >> > > >    is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > > >> > > >    https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > > >> > > >    - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still
> > > >around 35
> > > >> > > >    minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I can
> > > >play
> > > >> > with
> > > >> > > >    memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some
> > > >reasonable
> > > >> > values now),
> > > >> > > >    I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
> > > >> > > >    - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial 24) -
> > > >that
> > > >> > should
> > > >> > > >    let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from each
> > > >other.
> > > >> > > >    - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have built
> > > >in
> > > >> retry
> > > >> > > >    mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures like
> > > >that
> > > >> > > >    - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We should
> be
> > > >way
> > > >> > below
> > > >> > > >    500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope
> > > >calculations.
> > > >> > Likely
> > > >> > > >    well below
> > > >> > > >    - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko as
> > > >I
> > > >> > > >    originally planned. GCR would require custom authentication
> > > >(and
> > > >> > > >    easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well handle
> > > >> > multi-staging
> > > >> > > >    builds (cache does not work
> > > >> > > >    https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682
> ).
> > > >I
> > > >> > updated
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > >    reflect that.
> > > >> > > >    - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we
> can
> > > >have
> > > >> > > >    reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's stability
> > > >(it has
> > > >> > problems
> > > >> > > >    sometimes)
> > > >> > > >    - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in any
> > > >> > Kubernetes
> > > >> > > >    cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting for
> > > >docker
> > > >> > engine
> > > >> > > >    might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be
> generally
> > > >> > replicable).
> > > >> > > >    - You can take a look at the current source code in
> > > >> > > >    https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > > >> > > >    - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom
> > > >builder
> > > >> > Docker,
> > > >> > > >    simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's
> > > >mostly
> > > >> some
> > > >> > > >    cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables +
> gitlab.ci
> > > >yaml
> > > >> > with
> > > >> > > >    job definitions.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > J.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > >> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds from
> > > >for PRs
> > > >> > :).
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
> > > >> > > >> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > > >> > > >> J.
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> Principal Software Engineer
> > > >> > > >> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
> > > >> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > >> > > >> napisał:
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI issue
> > > >about
> > > >> PRs
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > >>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of
> Product
> > > >> > Management @
> > > >> > > >>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough.
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in order to
> > > >> alleviate
> > > >> > any
> > > >> > > >>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the whole
> > > >system on
> > > >> > GitLab
> > > >> > > >>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for quite some
> > > >time
> > > >> > (even
> > > >> > > >>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we will
> be
> > > >able
> > > >> > to tune
> > > >> > > >>> it according to real use cases and compare the experience of
> > > >both
> > > >> > systems.
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will make
> > > >sure that
> > > >> > > >>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes experience
> > > >(from my
> > > >> > company)
> > > >> > > >>> who can take over and make sure there will be no problems.
> > > >However
> > > >> I
> > > >> > am
> > > >> > > >>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I am
> > > >away. I
> > > >> > would also
> > > >> > > >>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join the
> > > >project
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > >>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see how easy
> > > >it is
> > > >> > and how
> > > >> > > >>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> J.
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
> > > >> > kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > > >> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other problems -
> > > >> building
> > > >> > > >>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch.
> > > >Currently,
> > > >> > > >>>> building is done using the RTD service. Unfortunately, our
> > > >project
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > >>>> too large and often the documentation is not built
> properly.
> > > >> > > >>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > > >> > > >>>> We should think about another way to build documentation.
> In
> > > >the
> > > >> > ideal
> > > >> > > >>>> world, building documentation should use the same
> > > >environment as
> > > >> > > >>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to Travis
> can
> > > >> further
> > > >> > > >>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > > >> > > >>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> >
> > > >https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project will
> > > >soon
> > > >> have
> > > >> > a
> > > >> > > >>>> website and our documentation will also be available in
> many
> > > >> > > >>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the
> design
> > > >> studio
> > > >> > > >>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > >> > > >>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you to
> > > >build a
> > > >> > > >>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks should be
> > > >> combined.
> > > >> > I
> > > >> > > >>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that will be
> a
> > > >real
> > > >> > > >>>> support for the community on current events, so it will be
> > > >updated
> > > >> > > >>>> frequently.
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now have
> > > >problems
> > > >> > > >>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems in the
> > > >future
> > > >> > can
> > > >> > > >>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable
> > > >infrastructure
> > > >> > for
> > > >> > > >>>> the project for a long time.
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>> I would like to share another situation which was not
> > > >pleasant for
> > > >> > me.
> > > >> > > >>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of Travis, I
> > > >had to
> > > >> > wait
> > > >> > > >>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my changes
> > > >in a
> > > >> > week,
> > > >> > > >>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I did it
> > > >over
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > >>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked on
> > > >Travis by
> > > >> my
> > > >> > > >>>> jobs.
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > > >> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > >> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > >>>> > Hello Everyone,
> > > >> > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > >>>> > I prepared a short docs where I described general
> > > >architecture
> > > >> of
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > >>>> > solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly - having
> > > >GitLab
> > > >> CI
> > > >> > > >>>> support
> > > >> > > >>>> > and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
> > > >> > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > >>>> > I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon but
> > > >before
> > > >> I
> > > >> > > >>>> start
> > > >> > > >>>> > doing it, I would like to get some comments and opinions
> > > >on the
> > > >> > > >>>> proposed
> > > >> > > >>>> > approach. I discussed the basic approach with my friend
> > > >Kamil
> > > >> who
> > > >> > > >>>> works at
> > > >> > > >>>> > GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we
> think
> > > >will
> > > >> be
> > > >> > > >>>> > achievable in fairly short time.
> > > >> > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > >> > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > >>>> > I am happy to discuss details and make changes to the
> > > >proposal -
> > > >> > we
> > > >> > > >>>> can
> > > >> > > >>>> > discuss it here or as comments in the document.
> > > >> > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > >>>> > Let's see what people think about it and if we get to
> some
> > > >> > consensus
> > > >> > > >>>> we
> > > >> > > >>>> > might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy consensus
> > > >as
> > > >> this
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > >>>> > something we should have rather quickly)
> > > >> > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > >>>> > Looking forward to your comments!
> > > >> > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > >>>> > J.
> > > >> > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > >>>> > --
> > > >> > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > >>>> > Jarek Potiuk
> > > >> > > >>>> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > > >> Engineer
> > > >> > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > >>>> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > >> > > >>>> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> --
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > >> > > >>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > > >Engineer
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > >> > > >>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > >> > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > > >Engineer
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > >> > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > --
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > >> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> Engineer
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > >> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >>
> > > >> Jarek Potiuk
> > > >> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > > >>
> > > >> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > > >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > >> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Kamil Breguła <ka...@polidea.com>.

+1 for Github Actions

On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 11:49 PM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for Github actions
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI experience - faster is
> > good too!
> >
> > -a
> >
> > On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
> > aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> > >+1 on GitHub Actions.
> > >
> > >On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so far and
> > >recently it
> > >> seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in Enterrprise
> > >Edition,
> > >> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit disappointed with the
> > >pace and
> > >> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better choice - especially
> > >that
> > >> they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem to get
> > >> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> > >>
> > >> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which makes it possible
> > >for us
> > >> to optimise the experience.
> > >>
> > >> J.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> J.
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> > >> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi all,
> > >> >
> > >> > It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than Travis. One
> > >of
> > >> the
> > >> > main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability to work
> > >on
> > >> > self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks Github
> > >Actions
> > >> > matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
> > >> >
> > >> > Github Actions are still growing but using them have few big
> > >advantages:
> > >> > - they are Github natives
> > >> > - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your fork
> > >> automatically
> > >> > - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
> > >> >
> > >> > I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> > >> > https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > >> > My impression is quite good. I like information about steps
> > >successes at
> > >> > the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step failed). The
> > >build
> > >> > log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
> > >> >
> > >> > Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions? Any
> > >thoughts
> > >> > about using it?
> > >> >
> > >> > Best,
> > >> > Tomek
> > >> >
> > >> > On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >> > > FYI: Interesting article about the history behind GitLabCI
> > >(featuring
> > >> > > Kamil, my friend).
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
> > ><Ja...@polidea.com>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly easily
> > >replicate
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it generally
> > >works, I
> > >> > can
> > >> > > > plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main Airflow
> > >project
> > >> > for a
> > >> > > > few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no holidays) and
> > >once we
> > >> > see
> > >> > > > it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we can
> > >switch to
> > >> it.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to set it
> > >up ?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Some details
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >    - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI +
> > >kubernetes -
> > >> > > >    without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this should
> > >be
> > >> > rather easy
> > >> > > >    with kind (looking at it next):
> > >> > > >    - Working example here - you can take a look and compare the
> > >> UI/how
> > >> > it
> > >> > > >    is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > >> > > >    https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > >> > > >    - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still
> > >around 35
> > >> > > >    minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I can
> > >play
> > >> > with
> > >> > > >    memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some
> > >reasonable
> > >> > values now),
> > >> > > >    I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
> > >> > > >    - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial 24) -
> > >that
> > >> > should
> > >> > > >    let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from each
> > >other.
> > >> > > >    - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have built
> > >in
> > >> retry
> > >> > > >    mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures like
> > >that
> > >> > > >    - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We should be
> > >way
> > >> > below
> > >> > > >    500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope
> > >calculations.
> > >> > Likely
> > >> > > >    well below
> > >> > > >    - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko as
> > >I
> > >> > > >    originally planned. GCR would require custom authentication
> > >(and
> > >> > > >    easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well handle
> > >> > multi-staging
> > >> > > >    builds (cache does not work
> > >> > > >    https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682).
> > >I
> > >> > updated
> > >> > > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > >> > to
> > >> > > >    reflect that.
> > >> > > >    - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we can
> > >have
> > >> > > >    reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's stability
> > >(it has
> > >> > problems
> > >> > > >    sometimes)
> > >> > > >    - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in any
> > >> > Kubernetes
> > >> > > >    cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting for
> > >docker
> > >> > engine
> > >> > > >    might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be generally
> > >> > replicable).
> > >> > > >    - You can take a look at the current source code in
> > >> > > >    https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > >> > > >    - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom
> > >builder
> > >> > Docker,
> > >> > > >    simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's
> > >mostly
> > >> some
> > >> > > >    cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables + gitlab.ci
> > >yaml
> > >> > with
> > >> > > >    job definitions.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > J.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > >> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds from
> > >for PRs
> > >> > :).
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
> > >> > > >> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > >> > > >> J.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Principal Software Engineer
> > >> > > >> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
> > >> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > >> > > >> napisał:
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI issue
> > >about
> > >> PRs
> > >> > and
> > >> > > >>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of Product
> > >> > Management @
> > >> > > >>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough.
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in order to
> > >> alleviate
> > >> > any
> > >> > > >>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the whole
> > >system on
> > >> > GitLab
> > >> > > >>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for quite some
> > >time
> > >> > (even
> > >> > > >>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we will be
> > >able
> > >> > to tune
> > >> > > >>> it according to real use cases and compare the experience of
> > >both
> > >> > systems.
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will make
> > >sure that
> > >> > > >>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes experience
> > >(from my
> > >> > company)
> > >> > > >>> who can take over and make sure there will be no problems.
> > >However
> > >> I
> > >> > am
> > >> > > >>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I am
> > >away. I
> > >> > would also
> > >> > > >>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join the
> > >project
> > >> and
> > >> > > >>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see how easy
> > >it is
> > >> > and how
> > >> > > >>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> J.
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
> > >> > kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > >> > > >>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other problems -
> > >> building
> > >> > > >>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch.
> > >Currently,
> > >> > > >>>> building is done using the RTD service. Unfortunately, our
> > >project
> > >> > is
> > >> > > >>>> too large and often the documentation is not built properly.
> > >> > > >>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > >> > > >>>> We should think about another way to build documentation. In
> > >the
> > >> > ideal
> > >> > > >>>> world, building documentation should use the same
> > >environment as
> > >> > > >>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to Travis can
> > >> further
> > >> > > >>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > >> > > >>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> >
> > >https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project will
> > >soon
> > >> have
> > >> > a
> > >> > > >>>> website and our documentation will also be available in many
> > >> > > >>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the design
> > >> studio
> > >> > > >>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > >> > > >>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you to
> > >build a
> > >> > > >>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks should be
> > >> combined.
> > >> > I
> > >> > > >>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that will be a
> > >real
> > >> > > >>>> support for the community on current events, so it will be
> > >updated
> > >> > > >>>> frequently.
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now have
> > >problems
> > >> > > >>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems in the
> > >future
> > >> > can
> > >> > > >>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable
> > >infrastructure
> > >> > for
> > >> > > >>>> the project for a long time.
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>> I would like to share another situation which was not
> > >pleasant for
> > >> > me.
> > >> > > >>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of Travis, I
> > >had to
> > >> > wait
> > >> > > >>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my changes
> > >in a
> > >> > week,
> > >> > > >>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I did it
> > >over
> > >> the
> > >> > > >>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked on
> > >Travis by
> > >> my
> > >> > > >>>> jobs.
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > >> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > >> > > >>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> > Hello Everyone,
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> > I prepared a short docs where I described general
> > >architecture
> > >> of
> > >> > the
> > >> > > >>>> > solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly - having
> > >GitLab
> > >> CI
> > >> > > >>>> support
> > >> > > >>>> > and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> > I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon but
> > >before
> > >> I
> > >> > > >>>> start
> > >> > > >>>> > doing it, I would like to get some comments and opinions
> > >on the
> > >> > > >>>> proposed
> > >> > > >>>> > approach. I discussed the basic approach with my friend
> > >Kamil
> > >> who
> > >> > > >>>> works at
> > >> > > >>>> > GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we think
> > >will
> > >> be
> > >> > > >>>> > achievable in fairly short time.
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> > I am happy to discuss details and make changes to the
> > >proposal -
> > >> > we
> > >> > > >>>> can
> > >> > > >>>> > discuss it here or as comments in the document.
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> > Let's see what people think about it and if we get to some
> > >> > consensus
> > >> > > >>>> we
> > >> > > >>>> > might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy consensus
> > >as
> > >> this
> > >> > is
> > >> > > >>>> > something we should have rather quickly)
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> > Looking forward to your comments!
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> > J.
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> > --
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> > Jarek Potiuk
> > >> > > >>>> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > >> Engineer
> > >> > > >>>> >
> > >> > > >>>> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >> > > >>>> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> --
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> Jarek Potiuk
> > >> > > >>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > >Engineer
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >> > > >>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > >> > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> > >Engineer
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >> > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Jarek Potiuk
> > >> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >> > >
> > >> > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Jarek Potiuk
> > >> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >>
> > >> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >>
> >
>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>.

+1 for Github actions

On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 22:16 Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org> wrote:

> Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI experience - faster is
> good too!
>
> -a
>
> On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <
> aizhamal@apache.org> wrote:
> >+1 on GitHub Actions.
> >
> >On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so far and
> >recently it
> >> seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in Enterrprise
> >Edition,
> >> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit disappointed with the
> >pace and
> >> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better choice - especially
> >that
> >> they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem to get
> >> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
> >>
> >> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which makes it possible
> >for us
> >> to optimise the experience.
> >>
> >> J.
> >>
> >>
> >> J.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> >> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than Travis. One
> >of
> >> the
> >> > main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability to work
> >on
> >> > self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks Github
> >Actions
> >> > matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
> >> >
> >> > Github Actions are still growing but using them have few big
> >advantages:
> >> > - they are Github natives
> >> > - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your fork
> >> automatically
> >> > - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
> >> >
> >> > I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> >> > https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> >> > My impression is quite good. I like information about steps
> >successes at
> >> > the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step failed). The
> >build
> >> > log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
> >> >
> >> > Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions? Any
> >thoughts
> >> > about using it?
> >> >
> >> > Best,
> >> > Tomek
> >> >
> >> > On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> >wrote:
> >> > > FYI: Interesting article about the history behind GitLabCI
> >(featuring
> >> > > Kamil, my friend).
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
> ><Ja...@polidea.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly easily
> >replicate
> >> > the
> >> > > > CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it generally
> >works, I
> >> > can
> >> > > > plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main Airflow
> >project
> >> > for a
> >> > > > few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no holidays) and
> >once we
> >> > see
> >> > > > it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we can
> >switch to
> >> it.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to set it
> >up ?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Some details
> >> > > >
> >> > > >    - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI +
> >kubernetes -
> >> > > >    without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this should
> >be
> >> > rather easy
> >> > > >    with kind (looking at it next):
> >> > > >    - Working example here - you can take a look and compare the
> >> UI/how
> >> > it
> >> > > >    is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> >> > > >    https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> >> > > >    - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still
> >around 35
> >> > > >    minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I can
> >play
> >> > with
> >> > > >    memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some
> >reasonable
> >> > values now),
> >> > > >    I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
> >> > > >    - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial 24) -
> >that
> >> > should
> >> > > >    let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from each
> >other.
> >> > > >    - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have built
> >in
> >> retry
> >> > > >    mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures like
> >that
> >> > > >    - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We should be
> >way
> >> > below
> >> > > >    500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope
> >calculations.
> >> > Likely
> >> > > >    well below
> >> > > >    - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko as
> >I
> >> > > >    originally planned. GCR would require custom authentication
> >(and
> >> > > >    easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well handle
> >> > multi-staging
> >> > > >    builds (cache does not work
> >> > > >    https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682).
> >I
> >> > updated
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> >> > to
> >> > > >    reflect that.
> >> > > >    - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we can
> >have
> >> > > >    reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's stability
> >(it has
> >> > problems
> >> > > >    sometimes)
> >> > > >    - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in any
> >> > Kubernetes
> >> > > >    cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting for
> >docker
> >> > engine
> >> > > >    might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be generally
> >> > replicable).
> >> > > >    - You can take a look at the current source code in
> >> > > >    https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> >> > > >    - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom
> >builder
> >> > Docker,
> >> > > >    simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's
> >mostly
> >> some
> >> > > >    cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables + gitlab.ci
> >yaml
> >> > with
> >> > > >    job definitions.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > J.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> >> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds from
> >for PRs
> >> > :).
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
> >> > > >> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> >> > > >> J.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Principal Software Engineer
> >> > > >> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
> >> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> >> > > >> napisał:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI issue
> >about
> >> PRs
> >> > and
> >> > > >>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of Product
> >> > Management @
> >> > > >>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in order to
> >> alleviate
> >> > any
> >> > > >>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the whole
> >system on
> >> > GitLab
> >> > > >>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for quite some
> >time
> >> > (even
> >> > > >>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we will be
> >able
> >> > to tune
> >> > > >>> it according to real use cases and compare the experience of
> >both
> >> > systems.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will make
> >sure that
> >> > > >>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes experience
> >(from my
> >> > company)
> >> > > >>> who can take over and make sure there will be no problems.
> >However
> >> I
> >> > am
> >> > > >>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I am
> >away. I
> >> > would also
> >> > > >>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join the
> >project
> >> and
> >> > > >>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see how easy
> >it is
> >> > and how
> >> > > >>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> J.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
> >> > kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> >> > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other problems -
> >> building
> >> > > >>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch.
> >Currently,
> >> > > >>>> building is done using the RTD service. Unfortunately, our
> >project
> >> > is
> >> > > >>>> too large and often the documentation is not built properly.
> >> > > >>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> >> > > >>>> We should think about another way to build documentation. In
> >the
> >> > ideal
> >> > > >>>> world, building documentation should use the same
> >environment as
> >> > > >>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to Travis can
> >> further
> >> > > >>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> >> > > >>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> >> > > >>>>
> >> >
> >https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project will
> >soon
> >> have
> >> > a
> >> > > >>>> website and our documentation will also be available in many
> >> > > >>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the design
> >> studio
> >> > > >>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> >
> >>
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> >> > > >>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you to
> >build a
> >> > > >>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks should be
> >> combined.
> >> > I
> >> > > >>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that will be a
> >real
> >> > > >>>> support for the community on current events, so it will be
> >updated
> >> > > >>>> frequently.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now have
> >problems
> >> > > >>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems in the
> >future
> >> > can
> >> > > >>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable
> >infrastructure
> >> > for
> >> > > >>>> the project for a long time.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> I would like to share another situation which was not
> >pleasant for
> >> > me.
> >> > > >>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of Travis, I
> >had to
> >> > wait
> >> > > >>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my changes
> >in a
> >> > week,
> >> > > >>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I did it
> >over
> >> the
> >> > > >>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked on
> >Travis by
> >> my
> >> > > >>>> jobs.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> >> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> >> > > >>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > Hello Everyone,
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > I prepared a short docs where I described general
> >architecture
> >> of
> >> > the
> >> > > >>>> > solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly - having
> >GitLab
> >> CI
> >> > > >>>> support
> >> > > >>>> > and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon but
> >before
> >> I
> >> > > >>>> start
> >> > > >>>> > doing it, I would like to get some comments and opinions
> >on the
> >> > > >>>> proposed
> >> > > >>>> > approach. I discussed the basic approach with my friend
> >Kamil
> >> who
> >> > > >>>> works at
> >> > > >>>> > GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we think
> >will
> >> be
> >> > > >>>> > achievable in fairly short time.
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>>
> >> >
> >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > I am happy to discuss details and make changes to the
> >proposal -
> >> > we
> >> > > >>>> can
> >> > > >>>> > discuss it here or as comments in the document.
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > Let's see what people think about it and if we get to some
> >> > consensus
> >> > > >>>> we
> >> > > >>>> > might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy consensus
> >as
> >> this
> >> > is
> >> > > >>>> > something we should have rather quickly)
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > Looking forward to your comments!
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > J.
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > --
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > Jarek Potiuk
> >> > > >>>> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> >> Engineer
> >> > > >>>> >
> >> > > >>>> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> >> > > >>>> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> --
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Jarek Potiuk
> >> > > >>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> >Engineer
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> >> > > >>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Jarek Potiuk
> >> > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> >Engineer
> >> > > >
> >> > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> >> > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > >
> >> > > Jarek Potiuk
> >> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> >> > >
> >> > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> >> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Jarek Potiuk
> >> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> >>
> >> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> >> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> >>
>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Ash Berlin-Taylor <as...@apache.org>.

Happy with any thing that gives a more seamless CI experience - faster is good too!

-a

On 9 December 2019 22:12:05 GMT, Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <ai...@apache.org> wrote:
>+1 on GitHub Actions.
>
>On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
>wrote:
>
>> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so far and
>recently it
>> seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in Enterrprise
>Edition,
>> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit disappointed with the
>pace and
>> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better choice - especially
>that
>> they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem to get
>> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
>>
>> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which makes it possible
>for us
>> to optimise the experience.
>>
>> J.
>>
>>
>> J.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
>> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than Travis. One
>of
>> the
>> > main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability to work
>on
>> > self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks Github
>Actions
>> > matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
>> >
>> > Github Actions are still growing but using them have few big
>advantages:
>> > - they are Github natives
>> > - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your fork
>> automatically
>> > - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
>> >
>> > I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
>> > https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
>> > My impression is quite good. I like information about steps
>successes at
>> > the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step failed). The
>build
>> > log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
>> >
>> > Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions? Any
>thoughts
>> > about using it?
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Tomek
>> >
>> > On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
>wrote:
>> > > FYI: Interesting article about the history behind GitLabCI
>(featuring
>> > > Kamil, my friend).
>> > >
>> >
>>
>https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk
><Ja...@polidea.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
>> > > >
>> > > > TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly easily
>replicate
>> > the
>> > > > CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it generally
>works, I
>> > can
>> > > > plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main Airflow
>project
>> > for a
>> > > > few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no holidays) and
>once we
>> > see
>> > > > it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we can
>switch to
>> it.
>> > > >
>> > > > What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to set it
>up ?
>> > > >
>> > > > Some details
>> > > >
>> > > >    - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI +
>kubernetes -
>> > > >    without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this should
>be
>> > rather easy
>> > > >    with kind (looking at it next):
>> > > >    - Working example here - you can take a look and compare the
>> UI/how
>> > it
>> > > >    is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
>> > > >    https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
>> > > >    - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still
>around 35
>> > > >    minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I can
>play
>> > with
>> > > >    memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some
>reasonable
>> > values now),
>> > > >    I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
>> > > >    - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial 24) -
>that
>> > should
>> > > >    let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from each
>other.
>> > > >    - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have built
>in
>> retry
>> > > >    mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures like
>that
>> > > >    - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We should be
>way
>> > below
>> > > >    500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope
>calculations.
>> > Likely
>> > > >    well below
>> > > >    - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko as
>I
>> > > >    originally planned. GCR would require custom authentication
>(and
>> > > >    easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well handle
>> > multi-staging
>> > > >    builds (cache does not work
>> > > >    https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682).
>I
>> > updated
>> > > >
>> >
>>
>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
>> > to
>> > > >    reflect that.
>> > > >    - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we can
>have
>> > > >    reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's stability
>(it has
>> > problems
>> > > >    sometimes)
>> > > >    - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in any
>> > Kubernetes
>> > > >    cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting for
>docker
>> > engine
>> > > >    might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be generally
>> > replicable).
>> > > >    - You can take a look at the current source code in
>> > > >    https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
>> > > >    - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom
>builder
>> > Docker,
>> > > >    simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's
>mostly
>> some
>> > > >    cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables + gitlab.ci
>yaml
>> > with
>> > > >    job definitions.
>> > > >
>> > > > J.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
>> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds from
>for PRs
>> > :).
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
>> > > >> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
>> > > >> J.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Principal Software Engineer
>> > > >> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
>> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
>> > > >> napisał:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI issue
>about
>> PRs
>> > and
>> > > >>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of Product
>> > Management @
>> > > >>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in order to
>> alleviate
>> > any
>> > > >>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the whole
>system on
>> > GitLab
>> > > >>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for quite some
>time
>> > (even
>> > > >>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we will be
>able
>> > to tune
>> > > >>> it according to real use cases and compare the experience of
>both
>> > systems.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will make
>sure that
>> > > >>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes experience
>(from my
>> > company)
>> > > >>> who can take over and make sure there will be no problems.
>However
>> I
>> > am
>> > > >>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I am
>away. I
>> > would also
>> > > >>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join the
>project
>> and
>> > > >>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see how easy
>it is
>> > and how
>> > > >>> maintenance free it is going to be.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> J.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
>> > kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
>> > > >>> wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other problems -
>> building
>> > > >>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch.
>Currently,
>> > > >>>> building is done using the RTD service. Unfortunately, our
>project
>> > is
>> > > >>>> too large and often the documentation is not built properly.
>> > > >>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
>> > > >>>> We should think about another way to build documentation. In
>the
>> > ideal
>> > > >>>> world, building documentation should use the same
>environment as
>> > > >>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to Travis can
>> further
>> > > >>>> reduce our development opportunities.
>> > > >>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
>> > > >>>>
>> >
>https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project will
>soon
>> have
>> > a
>> > > >>>> website and our documentation will also be available in many
>> > > >>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the design
>> studio
>> > > >>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> >
>>
>https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
>> > > >>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you to
>build a
>> > > >>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks should be
>> combined.
>> > I
>> > > >>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that will be a
>real
>> > > >>>> support for the community on current events, so it will be
>updated
>> > > >>>> frequently.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now have
>problems
>> > > >>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems in the
>future
>> > can
>> > > >>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable
>infrastructure
>> > for
>> > > >>>> the project for a long time.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> I would like to share another situation which was not
>pleasant for
>> > me.
>> > > >>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of Travis, I
>had to
>> > wait
>> > > >>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my changes
>in a
>> > week,
>> > > >>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I did it
>over
>> the
>> > > >>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked on
>Travis by
>> my
>> > > >>>> jobs.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
>> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
>> > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > Hello Everyone,
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > I prepared a short docs where I described general
>architecture
>> of
>> > the
>> > > >>>> > solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly - having
>GitLab
>> CI
>> > > >>>> support
>> > > >>>> > and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon but
>before
>> I
>> > > >>>> start
>> > > >>>> > doing it, I would like to get some comments and opinions
>on the
>> > > >>>> proposed
>> > > >>>> > approach. I discussed the basic approach with my friend
>Kamil
>> who
>> > > >>>> works at
>> > > >>>> > GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we think
>will
>> be
>> > > >>>> > achievable in fairly short time.
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>>
>> >
>>
>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > I am happy to discuss details and make changes to the
>proposal -
>> > we
>> > > >>>> can
>> > > >>>> > discuss it here or as comments in the document.
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > Let's see what people think about it and if we get to some
>> > consensus
>> > > >>>> we
>> > > >>>> > might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy consensus
>as
>> this
>> > is
>> > > >>>> > something we should have rather quickly)
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > Looking forward to your comments!
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > J.
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > --
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > Jarek Potiuk
>> > > >>>> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
>> Engineer
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
>> > > >>>> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> --
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Jarek Potiuk
>> > > >>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
>Engineer
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
>> > > >>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > >
>> > > > Jarek Potiuk
>> > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
>Engineer
>> > > >
>> > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
>> > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >
>> > > Jarek Potiuk
>> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>> > >
>> > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
>> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jarek Potiuk
>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>>
>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
>> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <ai...@apache.org>.

+1 on GitHub Actions.

On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
wrote:

> I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so far and recently it
> seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in Enterrprise Edition,
> which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit disappointed with the pace and
> attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better choice - especially that
> they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem to get
> attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.
>
> And they added self-hosted runners as well, which makes it possible for us
> to optimise the experience.
>
> J.
>
>
> J.
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than Travis. One of
> the
> > main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability to work on
> > self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks Github Actions
> > matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
> >
> > Github Actions are still growing but using them have few big advantages:
> > - they are Github natives
> > - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your fork
> automatically
> > - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
> >
> > I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> > https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > My impression is quite good. I like information about steps successes at
> > the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step failed). The build
> > log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
> >
> > Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions? Any thoughts
> > about using it?
> >
> > Best,
> > Tomek
> >
> > On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com> wrote:
> > > FYI: Interesting article about the history behind GitLabCI (featuring
> > > Kamil, my friend).
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> > > >
> > > > TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly easily replicate
> > the
> > > > CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it generally works, I
> > can
> > > > plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main Airflow project
> > for a
> > > > few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no holidays) and once we
> > see
> > > > it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we can switch to
> it.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to set it up ?
> > > >
> > > > Some details
> > > >
> > > >    - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI + kubernetes -
> > > >    without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this should be
> > rather easy
> > > >    with kind (looking at it next):
> > > >    - Working example here - you can take a look and compare the
> UI/how
> > it
> > > >    is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > > >    https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > > >    - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still around 35
> > > >    minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I can play
> > with
> > > >    memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some reasonable
> > values now),
> > > >    I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
> > > >    - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial 24) - that
> > should
> > > >    let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from each other.
> > > >    - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have built in
> retry
> > > >    mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures like that
> > > >    - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We should be way
> > below
> > > >    500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope calculations.
> > Likely
> > > >    well below
> > > >    - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko as I
> > > >    originally planned. GCR would require custom authentication (and
> > > >    easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well handle
> > multi-staging
> > > >    builds (cache does not work
> > > >    https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682). I
> > updated
> > > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > to
> > > >    reflect that.
> > > >    - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we can have
> > > >    reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's stability (it has
> > problems
> > > >    sometimes)
> > > >    - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in any
> > Kubernetes
> > > >    cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting for docker
> > engine
> > > >    might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be generally
> > replicable).
> > > >    - You can take a look at the current source code in
> > > >    https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > > >    - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom builder
> > Docker,
> > > >    simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's mostly
> some
> > > >    cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables + gitlab.ci yaml
> > with
> > > >    job definitions.
> > > >
> > > > J.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds from for PRs
> > :).
> > > >>
> > > >> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
> > > >> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > > >> J.
> > > >>
> > > >> Principal Software Engineer
> > > >> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > >>
> > > >> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > >> napisał:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI issue about
> PRs
> > and
> > > >>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of Product
> > Management @
> > > >>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in order to
> alleviate
> > any
> > > >>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the whole system on
> > GitLab
> > > >>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for quite some time
> > (even
> > > >>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we will be able
> > to tune
> > > >>> it according to real use cases and compare the experience of both
> > systems.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will make sure that
> > > >>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes experience (from my
> > company)
> > > >>> who can take over and make sure there will be no problems. However
> I
> > am
> > > >>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I am away. I
> > would also
> > > >>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join the project
> and
> > > >>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see how easy it is
> > and how
> > > >>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> J.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
> > kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other problems -
> building
> > > >>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch. Currently,
> > > >>>> building is done using the RTD service. Unfortunately, our project
> > is
> > > >>>> too large and often the documentation is not built properly.
> > > >>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > > >>>> We should think about another way to build documentation. In the
> > ideal
> > > >>>> world, building documentation should use the same environment as
> > > >>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to Travis can
> further
> > > >>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > > >>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > > >>>>
> > https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project will soon
> have
> > a
> > > >>>> website and our documentation will also be available in many
> > > >>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the design
> studio
> > > >>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > >>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you to build a
> > > >>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks should be
> combined.
> > I
> > > >>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that will be a real
> > > >>>> support for the community on current events, so it will be updated
> > > >>>> frequently.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now have problems
> > > >>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems in the future
> > can
> > > >>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable infrastructure
> > for
> > > >>>> the project for a long time.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I would like to share another situation which was not pleasant for
> > me.
> > > >>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of Travis, I had to
> > wait
> > > >>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my changes in a
> > week,
> > > >>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I did it over
> the
> > > >>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked on Travis by
> my
> > > >>>> jobs.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > Hello Everyone,
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > I prepared a short docs where I described general architecture
> of
> > the
> > > >>>> > solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly - having GitLab
> CI
> > > >>>> support
> > > >>>> > and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon but before
> I
> > > >>>> start
> > > >>>> > doing it, I would like to get some comments and opinions on the
> > > >>>> proposed
> > > >>>> > approach. I discussed the basic approach with my friend Kamil
> who
> > > >>>> works at
> > > >>>> > GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we think will
> be
> > > >>>> > achievable in fairly short time.
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > I am happy to discuss details and make changes to the proposal -
> > we
> > > >>>> can
> > > >>>> > discuss it here or as comments in the document.
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > Let's see what people think about it and if we get to some
> > consensus
> > > >>>> we
> > > >>>> > might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy consensus as
> this
> > is
> > > >>>> > something we should have rather quickly)
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > Looking forward to your comments!
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > J.
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > --
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > Jarek Potiuk
> > > >>>> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> Engineer
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > >>>> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > >>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > > >>>
> > > >>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > >>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > > >
> > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >
> > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Jarek Potiuk
> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>
> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>.

I am all for it! GitLab has been less-than helpful so far and recently it
seems that running PRs from forks will only be run in Enterrprise Edition,
which is less than welcome. I am quite a bit disappointed with the pace and
attitude. Github Actions seems to be much better choice - especially that
they are closely integrated with Github repo and seem to get
attention/focus from Github/Microsoft.

And they added self-hosted runners as well, which makes it possible for us
to optimise the experience.

J.


J.

On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <to...@polidea.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than Travis. One of the
> main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability to work on
> self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks Github Actions
> matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
>
> Github Actions are still growing but using them have few big advantages:
> - they are Github natives
> - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your fork automatically
> - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
>
> I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> My impression is quite good. I like information about steps successes at
> the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step failed). The build
> log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
>
> Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions? Any thoughts
> about using it?
>
> Best,
> Tomek
>
> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com> wrote:
> > FYI: Interesting article about the history behind GitLabCI (featuring
> > Kamil, my friend).
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> > >
> > > TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly easily replicate
> the
> > > CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it generally works, I
> can
> > > plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main Airflow project
> for a
> > > few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no holidays) and once we
> see
> > > it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we can switch to it.
> > >
> > > What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to set it up ?
> > >
> > > Some details
> > >
> > >    - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI + kubernetes -
> > >    without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this should be
> rather easy
> > >    with kind (looking at it next):
> > >    - Working example here - you can take a look and compare the UI/how
> it
> > >    is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > >    https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > >    - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still around 35
> > >    minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I can play
> with
> > >    memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some reasonable
> values now),
> > >    I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
> > >    - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial 24) - that
> should
> > >    let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from each other.
> > >    - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have built in retry
> > >    mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures like that
> > >    - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We should be way
> below
> > >    500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope calculations.
> Likely
> > >    well below
> > >    - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko as I
> > >    originally planned. GCR would require custom authentication (and
> > >    easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well handle
> multi-staging
> > >    builds (cache does not work
> > >    https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682). I
> updated
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> to
> > >    reflect that.
> > >    - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we can have
> > >    reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's stability (it has
> problems
> > >    sometimes)
> > >    - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in any
> Kubernetes
> > >    cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting for docker
> engine
> > >    might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be generally
> replicable).
> > >    - You can take a look at the current source code in
> > >    https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > >    - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom builder
> Docker,
> > >    simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's mostly some
> > >    cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables + gitlab.ci yaml
> with
> > >    job definitions.
> > >
> > > J.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds from for PRs
> :).
> > >>
> > >> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
> > >> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > >> J.
> > >>
> > >> Principal Software Engineer
> > >> Phone: +48660796129
> > >>
> > >> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > >> napisał:
> > >>
> > >>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI issue about PRs
> and
> > >>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of Product
> Management @
> > >>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough.
> > >>>
> > >>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in order to alleviate
> any
> > >>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the whole system on
> GitLab
> > >>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for quite some time
> (even
> > >>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we will be able
> to tune
> > >>> it according to real use cases and compare the experience of both
> systems.
> > >>>
> > >>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will make sure that
> > >>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes experience (from my
> company)
> > >>> who can take over and make sure there will be no problems. However I
> am
> > >>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I am away. I
> would also
> > >>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join the project and
> > >>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see how easy it is
> and how
> > >>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > >>>
> > >>> J.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other problems - building
> > >>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch. Currently,
> > >>>> building is done using the RTD service. Unfortunately, our project
> is
> > >>>> too large and often the documentation is not built properly.
> > >>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > >>>> We should think about another way to build documentation. In the
> ideal
> > >>>> world, building documentation should use the same environment as
> > >>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to Travis can further
> > >>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > >>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > >>>>
> https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project will soon have
> a
> > >>>> website and our documentation will also be available in many
> > >>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the design studio
> > >>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > >>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you to build a
> > >>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks should be combined.
> I
> > >>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that will be a real
> > >>>> support for the community on current events, so it will be updated
> > >>>> frequently.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now have problems
> > >>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems in the future
> can
> > >>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable infrastructure
> for
> > >>>> the project for a long time.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I would like to share another situation which was not pleasant for
> me.
> > >>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of Travis, I had to
> wait
> > >>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my changes in a
> week,
> > >>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I did it over the
> > >>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked on Travis by my
> > >>>> jobs.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > Hello Everyone,
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > I prepared a short docs where I described general architecture of
> the
> > >>>> > solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly - having GitLab CI
> > >>>> support
> > >>>> > and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon but before I
> > >>>> start
> > >>>> > doing it, I would like to get some comments and opinions on the
> > >>>> proposed
> > >>>> > approach. I discussed the basic approach with my friend Kamil who
> > >>>> works at
> > >>>> > GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we think will be
> > >>>> > achievable in fairly short time.
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > I am happy to discuss details and make changes to the proposal -
> we
> > >>>> can
> > >>>> > discuss it here or as comments in the document.
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > Let's see what people think about it and if we get to some
> consensus
> > >>>> we
> > >>>> > might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy consensus as this
> is
> > >>>> > something we should have rather quickly)
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > Looking forward to your comments!
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > J.
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > --
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > Jarek Potiuk
> > >>>> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > >>>> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Jarek Potiuk
> > >>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >>>
> > >>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > >>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >
> > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Jarek Potiuk
> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> >
> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> >
>


-- 

Jarek Potiuk
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer

M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Tomasz Urbaszek <to...@polidea.com>.

By default builds are run on Github runners. A public repo has 2000 minutes
monthly,
that's definitely not enough for us. But having having GCP resources
 donated to us
we should be able to overcome this problem.

T.

On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 11:02 PM Pablo Estrada <pa...@google.com.invalid>
wrote:

> That looks pretty cool! It helps that they're github native. Where does the
> compute power come from? Is it provided by github?
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 1:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <
> tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than Travis. One of
> the
> > main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability to work on
> > self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks Github Actions
> > matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
> >
> > Github Actions are still growing but using them have few big advantages:
> > - they are Github natives
> > - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your fork
> automatically
> > - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
> >
> > I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> > https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> > My impression is quite good. I like information about steps successes at
> > the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step failed). The build
> > log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
> >
> > Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions? Any thoughts
> > about using it?
> >
> > Best,
> > Tomek
> >
> > On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com> wrote:
> > > FYI: Interesting article about the history behind GitLabCI (featuring
> > > Kamil, my friend).
> > >
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> > > >
> > > > TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly easily replicate
> > the
> > > > CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it generally works, I
> > can
> > > > plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main Airflow project
> > for a
> > > > few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no holidays) and once we
> > see
> > > > it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we can switch to
> it.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to set it up ?
> > > >
> > > > Some details
> > > >
> > > >    - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI + kubernetes -
> > > >    without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this should be
> > rather easy
> > > >    with kind (looking at it next):
> > > >    - Working example here - you can take a look and compare the
> UI/how
> > it
> > > >    is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > > >    https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > > >    - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still around 35
> > > >    minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I can play
> > with
> > > >    memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some reasonable
> > values now),
> > > >    I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
> > > >    - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial 24) - that
> > should
> > > >    let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from each other.
> > > >    - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have built in
> retry
> > > >    mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures like that
> > > >    - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We should be way
> > below
> > > >    500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope calculations.
> > Likely
> > > >    well below
> > > >    - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko as I
> > > >    originally planned. GCR would require custom authentication (and
> > > >    easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well handle
> > multi-staging
> > > >    builds (cache does not work
> > > >    https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682). I
> > updated
> > > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > to
> > > >    reflect that.
> > > >    - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we can have
> > > >    reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's stability (it has
> > problems
> > > >    sometimes)
> > > >    - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in any
> > Kubernetes
> > > >    cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting for docker
> > engine
> > > >    might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be generally
> > replicable).
> > > >    - You can take a look at the current source code in
> > > >    https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > > >    - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom builder
> > Docker,
> > > >    simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's mostly
> some
> > > >    cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables + gitlab.ci yaml
> > with
> > > >    job definitions.
> > > >
> > > > J.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds from for PRs
> > :).
> > > >>
> > > >> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
> > > >> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > > >> J.
> > > >>
> > > >> Principal Software Engineer
> > > >> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > > >>
> > > >> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > >> napisał:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI issue about
> PRs
> > and
> > > >>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of Product
> > Management @
> > > >>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in order to
> alleviate
> > any
> > > >>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the whole system on
> > GitLab
> > > >>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for quite some time
> > (even
> > > >>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we will be able
> > to tune
> > > >>> it according to real use cases and compare the experience of both
> > systems.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will make sure that
> > > >>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes experience (from my
> > company)
> > > >>> who can take over and make sure there will be no problems. However
> I
> > am
> > > >>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I am away. I
> > would also
> > > >>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join the project
> and
> > > >>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see how easy it is
> > and how
> > > >>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> J.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
> > kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other problems -
> building
> > > >>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch. Currently,
> > > >>>> building is done using the RTD service. Unfortunately, our project
> > is
> > > >>>> too large and often the documentation is not built properly.
> > > >>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > > >>>> We should think about another way to build documentation. In the
> > ideal
> > > >>>> world, building documentation should use the same environment as
> > > >>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to Travis can
> further
> > > >>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > > >>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > > >>>>
> > https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project will soon
> have
> > a
> > > >>>> website and our documentation will also be available in many
> > > >>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the design
> studio
> > > >>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > > >>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you to build a
> > > >>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks should be
> combined.
> > I
> > > >>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that will be a real
> > > >>>> support for the community on current events, so it will be updated
> > > >>>> frequently.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now have problems
> > > >>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems in the future
> > can
> > > >>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable infrastructure
> > for
> > > >>>> the project for a long time.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I would like to share another situation which was not pleasant for
> > me.
> > > >>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of Travis, I had to
> > wait
> > > >>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my changes in a
> > week,
> > > >>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I did it over
> the
> > > >>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked on Travis by
> my
> > > >>>> jobs.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> > Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > Hello Everyone,
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > I prepared a short docs where I described general architecture
> of
> > the
> > > >>>> > solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly - having GitLab
> CI
> > > >>>> support
> > > >>>> > and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon but before
> I
> > > >>>> start
> > > >>>> > doing it, I would like to get some comments and opinions on the
> > > >>>> proposed
> > > >>>> > approach. I discussed the basic approach with my friend Kamil
> who
> > > >>>> works at
> > > >>>> > GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we think will
> be
> > > >>>> > achievable in fairly short time.
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > I am happy to discuss details and make changes to the proposal -
> > we
> > > >>>> can
> > > >>>> > discuss it here or as comments in the document.
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > Let's see what people think about it and if we get to some
> > consensus
> > > >>>> we
> > > >>>> > might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy consensus as
> this
> > is
> > > >>>> > something we should have rather quickly)
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > Looking forward to your comments!
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > J.
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > --
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > Jarek Potiuk
> > > >>>> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software
> Engineer
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > >>>> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Jarek Potiuk
> > > >>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > > >>>
> > > >>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > >>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > > >
> > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >
> > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> > <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >
> >
>


-- 

Tomasz Urbaszek
Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer

M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493>
E: tomasz.urbaszek@polidea.com <to...@polidea.com>

Unique Tech
Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>

Re: [Discuss] AIP-23 Proposal "Migration out of Travis CI"

Posted by Pablo Estrada <pa...@google.com.INVALID>.

That looks pretty cool! It helps that they're github native. Where does the
compute power come from? Is it provided by github?

On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 1:57 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <to...@polidea.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> It sometime since we last discussed using other CI than Travis. One of the
> main reasons behind considering Gitlab CI was its ability to work on
> self-hosted runner. However, over time of few long weeks Github Actions
> matured enough to allow using self-hosted runners!
>
> Github Actions are still growing but using them have few big advantages:
> - they are Github natives
> - forking repo and enabling actions will run CI on your fork automatically
> - variety of actions (PR checks, greetings, etc)
>
> I put together a PoC of CI in our internal repo:
> https://github.com/PolideaInternal/airflow/pull/542
> My impression is quite good. I like information about steps successes at
> the PR level (no need to go to CI to check which step failed). The build
> log view is a little bit clumsy but it works.
>
> Does any of you have any experience with Github Actions? Any thoughts
> about using it?
>
> Best,
> Tomek
>
> On 2019/08/09 13:55:11, Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com> wrote:
> > FYI: Interesting article about the history behind GitLabCI (featuring
> > Kamil, my friend).
> >
> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/08/08/built-in-ci-cd-version-control-secret/?fbclid=IwAR2tEfqLaDXTCd1mD6XUZMX7hGYBfZcohPtI2BP3-oK_Yk_EHIXF4zLDixk
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:14 PM Jarek Potiuk <Ja...@polidea.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Some update on my GitLab experiences so far:
> > >
> > > TL;DR; I think the POC has shown that we can fairly easily replicate
> the
> > > CI in GitLab + Kubernetes. I think i can say - it generally works, I
> can
> > > plug it in for master/v1-10-test builds in the main Airflow project
> for a
> > > few weeks to see how it is doing (while I am no holidays) and once we
> see
> > > it running and get the support for PRs from GitLab we can switch to it.
> > >
> > > What do you think ? Should i call a vote or just try to set it up ?
> > >
> > > Some details
> > >
> > >    - I manged to get full working builds in GitLabCI + kubernetes -
> > >    without the kubernetes-specific tests yet, but this should be
> rather easy
> > >    with kind (looking at it next):
> > >    - Working example here - you can take a look and compare the UI/how
> it
> > >    is to navigate, comparing to Travis etc:
> > >    https://gitlab.com/Jarek.Potiuk/airflow/pipelines/74625817
> > >    - Per-job it is a bit slower than Travis so far (still around 35
> > >    minutes in total), but I plan to optimise it further. I can play
> with
> > >    memory/cpu settings of individual workers (Got some reasonable
> values now),
> > >    I can use local SSD disk as Docker storage/logs/etc
> > >    - I got an approval for 72vCPU quota (up for initial 24) - that
> should
> > >    let us build 3 builds in parallel independently from each other.
> > >    - I managed to get Preemptible nodes working (we have built in retry
> > >    mechanism in GitLab to work in case of system failures like that
> > >    - Current spending with > 120 builds is 40 USD. We should be way
> below
> > >    500 USD/month according to my back-of-the-envelope calculations.
> Likely
> > >    well below
> > >    - The current setup does not use GCR as cache and Kaniko as I
> > >    originally planned. GCR would require custom authentication (and
> > >    easy-to-steal secrets) and Kaniko does not yet well handle
> multi-staging
> > >    builds (cache does not work
> > >    https://github.com/GoogleContainerTools/kaniko/issues/682). I
> updated
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> to
> > >    reflect that.
> > >    - We only use GCR as mirroring of DockerHub - so that we can have
> > >    reliable downloads not depending on DockerHub's stability (it has
> problems
> > >    sometimes)
> > >    - All in-all, it's GCP-independent. It could be run in any
> Kubernetes
> > >    cluster (some optimisations like local volumes mounting for docker
> engine
> > >    might have GCP-specific assumptions, but should be generally
> replicable).
> > >    - You can take a look at the current source code in
> > >    https://github.com/potiuk/airflow/commits/test-gitlab-ci
> > >    - There will be some updates (I will get rid of custom builder
> Docker,
> > >    simplify it a bit and implement kubernetes tests) - it's mostly some
> > >    cleanups + removal of Travis-Specific variables + gitlab.ci yaml
> with
> > >    job definitions.
> > >
> > > J.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:57 AM Jarek Potiuk <
> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> So GitLab already works on automatically running builds from for PRs
> :).
> > >>
> > >> Kamil got involved and will be out advocate on it:
> > >> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/65139
> > >> J.
> > >>
> > >> Principal Software Engineer
> > >> Phone: +48660796129 <+48%20660%20796%20129>
> > >>
> > >> pt., 26 lip 2019, 18:12 użytkownik Jarek Potiuk <
> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > >> napisał:
> > >>
> > >>> Update: I added appropriate comment in the GitLab CI issue about PRs
> and
> > >>> we are getting attention of Jason Lenny - director of Product
> Management @
> > >>> GitLab. Let's hope they prioritise it quickly enough.
> > >>>
> > >>> Speaking of potential complexity/Maintenance - in order to alleviate
> any
> > >>> maintenance worries, I think about setting up the whole system on
> GitLab
> > >>> CI + GKE and running it in parallel to Travis for quite some time
> (even
> > >>> months) so that we can switch it at any time. Then we will be able
> to tune
> > >>> it according to real use cases and compare the experience of both
> systems.
> > >>>
> > >>> Also I am going for holidays in two weeks and I will make sure that
> > >>> there will be someone with GitLab + Kubernetes experience (from my
> company)
> > >>> who can take over and make sure there will be no problems. However I
> am
> > >>> quite confident :D nothing is going to happen while I am away. I
> would also
> > >>> invite whoever from committers who would like to join the project and
> > >>> gitlab instance (once I setup POC) to learn and see how easy it is
> and how
> > >>> maintenance free it is going to be.
> > >>>
> > >>> J.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kamil Breguła <
> kamil.bregula@polidea.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> GKE and its own CI will allow us to solve other problems - building
> > >>>> and publishing documentation from the master branch. Currently,
> > >>>> building is done using the RTD service. Unfortunately, our project
> is
> > >>>> too large and often the documentation is not built properly.
> > >>>> https://readthedocs.org/projects/airflow/builds/
> > >>>> We should think about another way to build documentation. In the
> ideal
> > >>>> world, building documentation should use the same environment as
> > >>>> checking documentation on CI. Adding this step to Travis can further
> > >>>> reduce our development opportunities.
> > >>>> Discussion on Slack about it:
> > >>>>
> https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CJ1LVREHX/p1561756652021900
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It is worth thinking about the fact that our project will soon have
> a
> > >>>> website and our documentation will also be available in many
> > >>>> languages. Currently, talks are taking place with the design studio
> > >>>> and developers who can make these websites ;-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982c7baa06742ad722f2baa0db53ad99aea6c26b14b7d6d4aa522677@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E
> > >>>> We should provide an environment that will allow you to build a
> > >>>> website and documentation. At best, these tasks should be combined.
> I
> > >>>> hope that we will be able to create a website that will be a real
> > >>>> support for the community on current events, so it will be updated
> > >>>> frequently.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It seems to me that the project will grow. If we now have problems
> > >>>> with Travis, then the significance of these problems in the future
> can
> > >>>> only grow. Now we have a chance to provide a stable infrastructure
> for
> > >>>> the project for a long time.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I would like to share another situation which was not pleasant for
> me.
> > >>>> Recently I wanted to send >10 PR, but because of Travis, I had to
> wait
> > >>>> for the weekend to send changes. If I would send my changes in a
> week,
> > >>>> I would block the queue for a few hours. Although I did it over the
> > >>>> weekend, I got the message that the queue is blocked on Travis by my
> > >>>> jobs.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <
> Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > Hello Everyone,
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > I prepared a short docs where I described general architecture of
> the
> > >>>> > solution I imagine we can deploy fairly quickly - having GitLab CI
> > >>>> support
> > >>>> > and Google provided funding for GCP resources.
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > I am going to start working on Proof-Of-Concept soon but before I
> > >>>> start
> > >>>> > doing it, I would like to get some comments and opinions on the
> > >>>> proposed
> > >>>> > approach. I discussed the basic approach with my friend Kamil who
> > >>>> works at
> > >>>> > GitLab and he is a CI maintainer and this is what we think will be
> > >>>> > achievable in fairly short time.
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-23+Migrate+out+of+Travis+CI
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > I am happy to discuss details and make changes to the proposal -
> we
> > >>>> can
> > >>>> > discuss it here or as comments in the document.
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > Let's see what people think about it and if we get to some
> consensus
> > >>>> we
> > >>>> > might want to cast a vote (or maybe go via lasy consensus as this
> is
> > >>>> > something we should have rather quickly)
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > Looking forward to your comments!
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > J.
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > --
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > Jarek Potiuk
> > >>>> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >>>> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Jarek Potiuk
> > >>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >>>
> > >>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > >>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Jarek Potiuk
> > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> > >
> > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Jarek Potiuk
> > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
> >
> > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129
> <+48%20660%20796%20129>>
> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
> >
>