[DISCUSS] Build RPM/DEBs in Travis?

[Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>]

In light of issues like this https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1419,
has anyone looked into building our RPMs and DEBs in Travis?  This is a
very common and easy mistake to make and our CI builds really should be
able to catch this.

Re: [DISCUSS] Build RPM/DEBs in Travis?

[Michael Miklavcic <mi...@gmail.com>]

You mean Otto thought of this already only 2 years ago? :)

Skimming over that Jira thread, I think we're just looking for a pass/fail
on the RPM/DEB builds at this point. I can't think of a reason why we'd
need to bring Jenkins into it now that we have the ability to run multiple
build sub-jobs in parallel. It keeps the validation and build failure wrt
Github neat and tidy without any additional infrastructure, afaict.

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:08 AM Otto Fowler <ot...@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-885
>
>
> On May 22, 2019 at 10:43:22, Justin Leet (justinjleet@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> Yep, that's all I was doing. I'm in favor of adding it to Travis.
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 10:28 AM Michael Miklavcic <
> michael.miklavcic@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think Justin was just giving rationale, not suggesting we shouldn't
> make
> > the improvements. I think at one point we also had some ambiguity about
> > whether or how Docker was going to run in Travis, but I believe some
> folks
> > have found a path through that? I agree with you both - let's get this
> > added to Travis. Good suggestion, Nick. +1.
> >
> > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:53 AM Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, running up Full Dev is a manual verification that is required. And
> > as
> > > a manual verification sometimes that will get missed. And in this
> > specific
> > > case, tt does seem a bit silly that the addition of a parser should
> > require
> > > the contributor to run up Full Dev.
> > >
> > > That being said, anything we can do to reduce the amount of manual
> > > verification that is required is a good thing. We should be pushing
> > > ourselves to an end state where no manual verification is required for
> > any
> > > Metron PR. I think building the RPMs/DEBs as part of the Travis build
> is
> > > at least a small step in the right direction.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:34 AM Justin Leet <ju...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Theoretically, we didn't need to before there were both RPMs and DEBs
> > > since
> > > > running dev up (which necessitates building those) is part of the
> build
> > > > process. Since they've been split apart, I agree we probably should
> be
> > > > building them, because nobody is going to run both unless they
> > > specifically
> > > > done something they'd expect to affect both.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:30 AM Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In light of issues like this
> > > https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1419,
> > > > > has anyone looked into building our RPMs and DEBs in Travis? This
> > is a
> > > > > very common and easy mistake to make and our CI builds really
> should
> > be
> > > > > able to catch this.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Build RPM/DEBs in Travis?

[Otto Fowler <ot...@gmail.com>]

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-885


On May 22, 2019 at 10:43:22, Justin Leet (justinjleet@gmail.com) wrote:

Yep, that's all I was doing. I'm in favor of adding it to Travis.

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 10:28 AM Michael Miklavcic <
michael.miklavcic@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think Justin was just giving rationale, not suggesting we shouldn't
make
> the improvements. I think at one point we also had some ambiguity about
> whether or how Docker was going to run in Travis, but I believe some
folks
> have found a path through that? I agree with you both - let's get this
> added to Travis. Good suggestion, Nick. +1.
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:53 AM Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org> wrote:
>
> > Yes, running up Full Dev is a manual verification that is required. And
> as
> > a manual verification sometimes that will get missed. And in this
> specific
> > case, tt does seem a bit silly that the addition of a parser should
> require
> > the contributor to run up Full Dev.
> >
> > That being said, anything we can do to reduce the amount of manual
> > verification that is required is a good thing. We should be pushing
> > ourselves to an end state where no manual verification is required for
> any
> > Metron PR. I think building the RPMs/DEBs as part of the Travis build
is
> > at least a small step in the right direction.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:34 AM Justin Leet <ju...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Theoretically, we didn't need to before there were both RPMs and DEBs
> > since
> > > running dev up (which necessitates building those) is part of the
build
> > > process. Since they've been split apart, I agree we probably should
be
> > > building them, because nobody is going to run both unless they
> > specifically
> > > done something they'd expect to affect both.
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:30 AM Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
wrote:
> > >
> > > > In light of issues like this
> > https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1419,
> > > > has anyone looked into building our RPMs and DEBs in Travis? This
> is a
> > > > very common and easy mistake to make and our CI builds really
should
> be
> > > > able to catch this.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Build RPM/DEBs in Travis?

[Justin Leet <ju...@gmail.com>]

Yep, that's all I was doing.  I'm in favor of adding it to Travis.

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 10:28 AM Michael Miklavcic <
michael.miklavcic@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think Justin was just giving rationale, not suggesting we shouldn't make
> the improvements. I think at one point we also had some ambiguity about
> whether or how Docker was going to run in Travis, but I believe some folks
> have found a path through that? I agree with you both - let's get this
> added to Travis. Good suggestion, Nick. +1.
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:53 AM Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org> wrote:
>
> > Yes, running up Full Dev is a manual verification that is required.  And
> as
> > a manual verification sometimes that will get missed.  And in this
> specific
> > case, tt does seem a bit silly that the addition of a parser should
> require
> > the contributor to run up Full Dev.
> >
> > That being said, anything we can do to reduce the amount of manual
> > verification that is required is a good thing.  We should be pushing
> > ourselves to an end state where no manual verification is required for
> any
> > Metron PR.  I think building the RPMs/DEBs as part of the Travis build is
> > at least a small step in the right direction.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:34 AM Justin Leet <ju...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Theoretically, we didn't need to before there were both RPMs and DEBs
> > since
> > > running dev up (which necessitates building those) is part of the build
> > > process. Since they've been split apart, I agree we probably should be
> > > building them, because nobody is going to run both unless they
> > specifically
> > > done something they'd expect to affect both.
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:30 AM Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In light of issues like this
> > https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1419,
> > > > has anyone looked into building our RPMs and DEBs in Travis?  This
> is a
> > > > very common and easy mistake to make and our CI builds really should
> be
> > > > able to catch this.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Build RPM/DEBs in Travis?

[Michael Miklavcic <mi...@gmail.com>]

I think Justin was just giving rationale, not suggesting we shouldn't make
the improvements. I think at one point we also had some ambiguity about
whether or how Docker was going to run in Travis, but I believe some folks
have found a path through that? I agree with you both - let's get this
added to Travis. Good suggestion, Nick. +1.

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:53 AM Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org> wrote:

> Yes, running up Full Dev is a manual verification that is required.  And as
> a manual verification sometimes that will get missed.  And in this specific
> case, tt does seem a bit silly that the addition of a parser should require
> the contributor to run up Full Dev.
>
> That being said, anything we can do to reduce the amount of manual
> verification that is required is a good thing.  We should be pushing
> ourselves to an end state where no manual verification is required for any
> Metron PR.  I think building the RPMs/DEBs as part of the Travis build is
> at least a small step in the right direction.
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:34 AM Justin Leet <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Theoretically, we didn't need to before there were both RPMs and DEBs
> since
> > running dev up (which necessitates building those) is part of the build
> > process. Since they've been split apart, I agree we probably should be
> > building them, because nobody is going to run both unless they
> specifically
> > done something they'd expect to affect both.
> >
> > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:30 AM Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org> wrote:
> >
> > > In light of issues like this
> https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1419,
> > > has anyone looked into building our RPMs and DEBs in Travis?  This is a
> > > very common and easy mistake to make and our CI builds really should be
> > > able to catch this.
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Build RPM/DEBs in Travis?

[Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>]

Yes, running up Full Dev is a manual verification that is required.  And as
a manual verification sometimes that will get missed.  And in this specific
case, tt does seem a bit silly that the addition of a parser should require
the contributor to run up Full Dev.

That being said, anything we can do to reduce the amount of manual
verification that is required is a good thing.  We should be pushing
ourselves to an end state where no manual verification is required for any
Metron PR.  I think building the RPMs/DEBs as part of the Travis build is
at least a small step in the right direction.


On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:34 AM Justin Leet <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Theoretically, we didn't need to before there were both RPMs and DEBs since
> running dev up (which necessitates building those) is part of the build
> process. Since they've been split apart, I agree we probably should be
> building them, because nobody is going to run both unless they specifically
> done something they'd expect to affect both.
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:30 AM Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org> wrote:
>
> > In light of issues like this https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1419,
> > has anyone looked into building our RPMs and DEBs in Travis?  This is a
> > very common and easy mistake to make and our CI builds really should be
> > able to catch this.
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Build RPM/DEBs in Travis?

[Justin Leet <ju...@gmail.com>]

Theoretically, we didn't need to before there were both RPMs and DEBs since
running dev up (which necessitates building those) is part of the build
process. Since they've been split apart, I agree we probably should be
building them, because nobody is going to run both unless they specifically
done something they'd expect to affect both.

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:30 AM Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org> wrote:

> In light of issues like this https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1419,
> has anyone looked into building our RPMs and DEBs in Travis?  This is a
> very common and easy mistake to make and our CI builds really should be
> able to catch this.
>