Status of our CI tools

[Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org>]

Early on in the project, we've discussed our CI needs and concluded to use
ASF-hosted Jenkins as our preferred tool of choice. We've also enabled
Travis-CI, which covered some scenarios that Jenkins couldn't do at the
time, but with the idea to transition to Jenkins eventually.

Over the last few months, Travis-CI has been broken consistently, and
several different kinds of infrastructure breakages have been added, one on
top of another. This has caused plenty of cost and confusion. In
particular, contributors often get confused as to which signal they should
care about.

At the same time, Jenkins capabilities have improved greatly: multiple
parallel precommits are now supported, checked-in DSL support, pipelined
matrix builds, Google's donation of Jenkins executors more than doubled,
and others.

So, based on the previous consensus and the fact the signal was broken for
a long time, Jason and I went and asked Infra to disable Travis-CI on our
code repository. (Website repository was disabled months ago.)

I believe there should be minimal impact of this. The only two elements of
the Travis matrix that were passing (still) are Python SDK on the Linux &
Mac. Linux one can be trivially moved to Jenkins -- and I know Jason is
looking at that. Mac coverage is the only loss at the moment, but is
something we can likely address in the (near) future.

I'm excited that we finally managed to unify our CI tooling, and can make
efforts on improving and maintaining one system as opposed to two. That
said, please comment if you have any worries about this or ideas for
further CI improvements ;-)

Davor

Re: Status of our CI tools

[Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org>]

+1 for letting Jenkins rule alone :)


On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Thomas Groh <tg...@google.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > +1! This will be really helpful when looking at my PRs; I basically get
> no
> > signal from the current state of the github UI, and this will restore
> that
> > to giving me very strong positive signal.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Early on in the project, we've discussed our CI needs and concluded to
> > use
> > > ASF-hosted Jenkins as our preferred tool of choice. We've also enabled
> > > Travis-CI, which covered some scenarios that Jenkins couldn't do at the
> > > time, but with the idea to transition to Jenkins eventually.
> > >
> > > Over the last few months, Travis-CI has been broken consistently, and
> > > several different kinds of infrastructure breakages have been added,
> one
> > on
> > > top of another. This has caused plenty of cost and confusion. In
> > > particular, contributors often get confused as to which signal they
> > should
> > > care about.
> > >
> > > At the same time, Jenkins capabilities have improved greatly: multiple
> > > parallel precommits are now supported, checked-in DSL support,
> pipelined
> > > matrix builds, Google's donation of Jenkins executors more than
> doubled,
> > > and others.
> > >
> > > So, based on the previous consensus and the fact the signal was broken
> > for
> > > a long time, Jason and I went and asked Infra to disable Travis-CI on
> our
> > > code repository. (Website repository was disabled months ago.)
> > >
> > > I believe there should be minimal impact of this. The only two elements
> > of
> > > the Travis matrix that were passing (still) are Python SDK on the
> Linux &
> > > Mac. Linux one can be trivially moved to Jenkins -- and I know Jason is
> > > looking at that. Mac coverage is the only loss at the moment, but is
> > > something we can likely address in the (near) future.
> > >
> > > I'm excited that we finally managed to unify our CI tooling, and can
> make
> > > efforts on improving and maintaining one system as opposed to two. That
> > > said, please comment if you have any worries about this or ideas for
> > > further CI improvements ;-)
> > >
> > > Davor
> > >
> >
>

Re: Status of our CI tools

[Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>]

+1

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Thomas Groh <tg...@google.com.invalid>
wrote:

> +1! This will be really helpful when looking at my PRs; I basically get no
> signal from the current state of the github UI, and this will restore that
> to giving me very strong positive signal.
>
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Early on in the project, we've discussed our CI needs and concluded to
> use
> > ASF-hosted Jenkins as our preferred tool of choice. We've also enabled
> > Travis-CI, which covered some scenarios that Jenkins couldn't do at the
> > time, but with the idea to transition to Jenkins eventually.
> >
> > Over the last few months, Travis-CI has been broken consistently, and
> > several different kinds of infrastructure breakages have been added, one
> on
> > top of another. This has caused plenty of cost and confusion. In
> > particular, contributors often get confused as to which signal they
> should
> > care about.
> >
> > At the same time, Jenkins capabilities have improved greatly: multiple
> > parallel precommits are now supported, checked-in DSL support, pipelined
> > matrix builds, Google's donation of Jenkins executors more than doubled,
> > and others.
> >
> > So, based on the previous consensus and the fact the signal was broken
> for
> > a long time, Jason and I went and asked Infra to disable Travis-CI on our
> > code repository. (Website repository was disabled months ago.)
> >
> > I believe there should be minimal impact of this. The only two elements
> of
> > the Travis matrix that were passing (still) are Python SDK on the Linux &
> > Mac. Linux one can be trivially moved to Jenkins -- and I know Jason is
> > looking at that. Mac coverage is the only loss at the moment, but is
> > something we can likely address in the (near) future.
> >
> > I'm excited that we finally managed to unify our CI tooling, and can make
> > efforts on improving and maintaining one system as opposed to two. That
> > said, please comment if you have any worries about this or ideas for
> > further CI improvements ;-)
> >
> > Davor
> >
>

Re: Status of our CI tools

[Thomas Groh <tg...@google.com.INVALID>]

+1! This will be really helpful when looking at my PRs; I basically get no
signal from the current state of the github UI, and this will restore that
to giving me very strong positive signal.

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org> wrote:

> Early on in the project, we've discussed our CI needs and concluded to use
> ASF-hosted Jenkins as our preferred tool of choice. We've also enabled
> Travis-CI, which covered some scenarios that Jenkins couldn't do at the
> time, but with the idea to transition to Jenkins eventually.
>
> Over the last few months, Travis-CI has been broken consistently, and
> several different kinds of infrastructure breakages have been added, one on
> top of another. This has caused plenty of cost and confusion. In
> particular, contributors often get confused as to which signal they should
> care about.
>
> At the same time, Jenkins capabilities have improved greatly: multiple
> parallel precommits are now supported, checked-in DSL support, pipelined
> matrix builds, Google's donation of Jenkins executors more than doubled,
> and others.
>
> So, based on the previous consensus and the fact the signal was broken for
> a long time, Jason and I went and asked Infra to disable Travis-CI on our
> code repository. (Website repository was disabled months ago.)
>
> I believe there should be minimal impact of this. The only two elements of
> the Travis matrix that were passing (still) are Python SDK on the Linux &
> Mac. Linux one can be trivially moved to Jenkins -- and I know Jason is
> looking at that. Mac coverage is the only loss at the moment, but is
> something we can likely address in the (near) future.
>
> I'm excited that we finally managed to unify our CI tooling, and can make
> efforts on improving and maintaining one system as opposed to two. That
> said, please comment if you have any worries about this or ideas for
> further CI improvements ;-)
>
> Davor
>

Re: Status of our CI tools

[Etienne Chauchot <ec...@gmail.com>]

Big +1 also,

I've been ignoring Travis for some months also.

I totally agree with what Dan wrote.

Best

Etienne


Le 30/04/2017 à 19:19, Dan Halperin a écrit :
> I think the confusion to new users is much worse than any temporary loss of
> functionality here. +1 * 100!
>
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Mingmin Xu <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>> Have ignored TravisCI for some time as the failures are not related with
>> code/test issues.
>>
>> I still hope TravisCI could work with Beam code repository some day, to
>> run tests before creating a PR.
>>
>> Mingmin
>>
>>> On Apr 28, 2017, at 10:26 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>> Big +1
>>>
>>>> On 29. Apr 2017, at 07:21, Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com.INVALID>
>> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>> wrote:
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> Travis is useless and our Jenkins is good IMHO !
>>>> Travis is really useful for the Python SDK, but I'm hopeful that soon
>>>> Jenkins will be stable and quick enough that I won't miss it, and
>>>> having only one CI to deal with should simplify things.
>>>>
>>>> - Robert

Re: Status of our CI tools

[Chamikara Jayalath <ch...@google.com.INVALID>]

+1

So far, I've been able to commit to Python SDK without caring much about
Travis. At least for now, it's not too hard to do testing locally in rare
cases where Jenkins is not stable. Hopefully Jenkins will become more
stable/faster over time.

- Cham

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 10:19 AM Dan Halperin <dh...@google.com.invalid>
wrote:

> I think the confusion to new users is much worse than any temporary loss of
> functionality here. +1 * 100!
>
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Mingmin Xu <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> > Have ignored TravisCI for some time as the failures are not related with
> > code/test issues.
> >
> > I still hope TravisCI could work with Beam code repository some day, to
> > run tests before creating a PR.
> >
> > Mingmin
> >
> > > On Apr 28, 2017, at 10:26 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Big +1
> > >
> > >> On 29. Apr 2017, at 07:21, Robert Bradshaw
> <ro...@google.com.INVALID>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> jb@nanthrax.net>
> > wrote:
> > >>> +1
> > >>>
> > >>> Travis is useless and our Jenkins is good IMHO !
> > >>
> > >> Travis is really useful for the Python SDK, but I'm hopeful that soon
> > >> Jenkins will be stable and quick enough that I won't miss it, and
> > >> having only one CI to deal with should simplify things.
> > >>
> > >> - Robert
> > >
> >
>

Re: Status of our CI tools

[Dan Halperin <dh...@google.com.INVALID>]

I think the confusion to new users is much worse than any temporary loss of
functionality here. +1 * 100!

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Mingmin Xu <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
> Have ignored TravisCI for some time as the failures are not related with
> code/test issues.
>
> I still hope TravisCI could work with Beam code repository some day, to
> run tests before creating a PR.
>
> Mingmin
>
> > On Apr 28, 2017, at 10:26 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Big +1
> >
> >> On 29. Apr 2017, at 07:21, Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com.INVALID>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> Travis is useless and our Jenkins is good IMHO !
> >>
> >> Travis is really useful for the Python SDK, but I'm hopeful that soon
> >> Jenkins will be stable and quick enough that I won't miss it, and
> >> having only one CI to deal with should simplify things.
> >>
> >> - Robert
> >
>

Re: Status of our CI tools

[Mingmin Xu <mi...@gmail.com>]

+1
Have ignored TravisCI for some time as the failures are not related with code/test issues.

I still hope TravisCI could work with Beam code repository some day, to run tests before creating a PR.

Mingmin

> On Apr 28, 2017, at 10:26 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Big +1
> 
>> On 29. Apr 2017, at 07:21, Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com.INVALID> wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> Travis is useless and our Jenkins is good IMHO !
>> 
>> Travis is really useful for the Python SDK, but I'm hopeful that soon
>> Jenkins will be stable and quick enough that I won't miss it, and
>> having only one CI to deal with should simplify things.
>> 
>> - Robert
> 

Re: Status of our CI tools

[Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>]

Big +1

> On 29. Apr 2017, at 07:21, Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com.INVALID> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>> +1
>> 
>> Travis is useless and our Jenkins is good IMHO !
> 
> Travis is really useful for the Python SDK, but I'm hopeful that soon
> Jenkins will be stable and quick enough that I won't miss it, and
> having only one CI to deal with should simplify things.
> 
> - Robert

Re: Status of our CI tools

[Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com.INVALID>]

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> +1
>
> Travis is useless and our Jenkins is good IMHO !

Travis is really useful for the Python SDK, but I'm hopeful that soon
Jenkins will be stable and quick enough that I won't miss it, and
having only one CI to deal with should simplify things.

- Robert

Re: Status of our CI tools

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>]

+1

Travis is useless and our Jenkins is good IMHO !

Thanks.
Regards
JB

On 04/29/2017 03:22 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> Early on in the project, we've discussed our CI needs and concluded to use
> ASF-hosted Jenkins as our preferred tool of choice. We've also enabled
> Travis-CI, which covered some scenarios that Jenkins couldn't do at the
> time, but with the idea to transition to Jenkins eventually.
>
> Over the last few months, Travis-CI has been broken consistently, and
> several different kinds of infrastructure breakages have been added, one on
> top of another. This has caused plenty of cost and confusion. In
> particular, contributors often get confused as to which signal they should
> care about.
>
> At the same time, Jenkins capabilities have improved greatly: multiple
> parallel precommits are now supported, checked-in DSL support, pipelined
> matrix builds, Google's donation of Jenkins executors more than doubled,
> and others.
>
> So, based on the previous consensus and the fact the signal was broken for
> a long time, Jason and I went and asked Infra to disable Travis-CI on our
> code repository. (Website repository was disabled months ago.)
>
> I believe there should be minimal impact of this. The only two elements of
> the Travis matrix that were passing (still) are Python SDK on the Linux &
> Mac. Linux one can be trivially moved to Jenkins -- and I know Jason is
> looking at that. Mac coverage is the only loss at the moment, but is
> something we can likely address in the (near) future.
>
> I'm excited that we finally managed to unify our CI tooling, and can make
> efforts on improving and maintaining one system as opposed to two. That
> said, please comment if you have any worries about this or ideas for
> further CI improvements ;-)
>
> Davor
>

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com