You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@qpid.apache.org by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> on 2020/12/02 12:02:47 UTC
Re: [NOTICE] Travis CI .org -> .com move, action required.
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 at 17:00, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 at 16:30, Jiri Daněk <jd...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:52 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 at 14:44, Ganesh Murthy <gm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:12 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Short version:
> > > > > 1) The Travis build jobs will migrate to a new URL, on their .com site
> > > > > rather than .org, links etc will need to be updated.
> > > > > 2) Travis have introduced relatively tiny default resource limits for
> > > > > free users, so you may want to disable Travis on your Github forks to
> > > > > save them until really needed (or you can apparently individually
> > > > > apply for a higher limit).
> > > > >
> > > > > Expanded version:
> > > > > First up, as some of you may know Travis CI is migrating away from use
> > > > > of https://travis-ci.org to solely using their other
> > > > > https://travis-ci.com site. This has been underway for many years at
> > > > > this point with no real traction, but a final deadline of Dec 31st has
> > > > > been set for the .org bits to become defunct, and worker nodes have
> > > > > been migrating across for weeks now, so the point has come a switch is
> > > > > required.
> > > > >
> > > > > When done, the existing URLs will just give a landing page saying the
> > > > > build moved, with a link to go to it. Folks using the existing URLs
> > > > > for build status etc will need to update their references.
> > > > >
> > > > > Infra started to migrate some jobs over themselves, and also migrate
> > > > > the paid ASF concurrency limits plan across for the apache github org.
> > > > > They decided they didnt want to end up migrating >2000 jobs when many
> > > > > aren't really used anymore, and so have asked for the remainder that
> > > > > migrations be requested.
> > > > >
> > > > > None of ours appear to have been moved yet, so I have requested [1]
> > > > > that infra do the migration for these repositories:
> > > > > qpid-broker-j
> > > > > qpid-dispatch
> > > > > qpid-jms
> > > > > qpid-proton
> > > > > qpid-proton-j
> > > > > qpid-site
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for doing this! So it looks like no other additional action is
> > > > required on our side.
> > > > Once this migration is complete, we will be as usual able to access the
> > > > Travis
> > > > builds from the github <https://github.com/apache/qpid-dispatch> website
> > > > with the just the one difference that the Travis build URLs
> > > > will point to the .com website.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Should be the case yep.
> > >
> > > > With regards to the resource limits on forks, it looks like we will have
> > > to
> > > > wait to see if they automatically
> > > > enable builds or if they will make us enable it. If they don't enable
> > > it,
> > > > I don't plan on enabling it.
> > > > Again, no action required from our side if they don't enable it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yep.
> > >
> > > > Qpid Dispatch has a mac build and it looks like we might have to pay for
> > > it
> > > > if we want to keep it around by purchasing what they
> > > > call credits (1 minute of mac build time costs 50 credits). Do we want to
> > > > do this? Or are we just going to drop the mac os builds?
> > > >
> > >
> > > We would surely drop it from the Travis build in that case.
> > >
> > > GitHub Actions also has MacOS build nodes, so that build workflow
> > > could be updated to use them if desired.
> > >
> >
> > Dispatch ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-1855
> >
> > We'll probably want to make the same change in Proton as well.
>
> For the removal from Travis, yep. The GHA build for Proton already
> runs on OSX currently as you no doubt know.
I ended up raising a JIRA for this,
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21154, which has now been
actioned. All the repository jobs have now been migrated to the .com
site.
I have prodded the various jobs to run, updating some READMEs and the
website to use links/badges from the .com site. Once they run, the
.org site updates to say only that the jobs were migrated and give a
link to the .com site.
The OSX elements of the Proton and Dispatch builds did execute,
whereas I expected the job to error immediately. This could be as the
ASF's plan has some life left (seems pricing migration happens at
plan-end), or they've got some OSX credits, unclear. I have asked
about those on the Infra JIRA to see what expectations are going
forward.
From a quick test I did the migration within the apache github org
seems to have no effect on our forks, which makes sense. This means
your forks with .org enabled builds will continue to try building
there, with its dwindling resources, until it goes defunct on Dec
31st. If you dont migrate or enable your fork build on the .com site
it simply won't build after that presumably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: [NOTICE] Travis CI .org -> .com move, action required.
Posted by Jiri Daněk <jd...@redhat.com>.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 1:12 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > Qpid Dispatch has a mac build and it looks like we might have to
> pay for
> > > > it
> > > > > if we want to keep it around by purchasing what they
> > > > > call credits (1 minute of mac build time costs 50 credits). Do we
> want to
> > > > > do this? Or are we just going to drop the mac os builds?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We would surely drop it from the Travis build in that case.
> > > >
> > > > GitHub Actions also has MacOS build nodes, so that build workflow
> > > > could be updated to use them if desired.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Dispatch ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-1855
> > >
> > > We'll probably want to make the same change in Proton as well.
> >
> > For the removal from Travis, yep. The GHA build for Proton already
> > runs on OSX currently as you no doubt know.
>
>
> I ended up raising a JIRA for this,
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21154, which has now been
> actioned. All the repository jobs have now been migrated to the .com
> site.
>
> I have prodded the various jobs to run, updating some READMEs and the
> website to use links/badges from the .com site. Once they run, the
> .org site updates to say only that the jobs were migrated and give a
> link to the .com site.
>
> The OSX elements of the Proton and Dispatch builds did execute,
> whereas I expected the job to error immediately. This could be as the
> ASF's plan has some life left (seems pricing migration happens at
> plan-end), or they've got some OSX credits, unclear. I have asked
> about those on the Infra JIRA to see what expectations are going
> forward.
>
> From a quick test I did the migration within the apache github org
> seems to have no effect on our forks, which makes sense. This means
> your forks with .org enabled builds will continue to try building
> there, with its dwindling resources, until it goes defunct on Dec
> 31st. If you dont migrate or enable your fork build on the .com site
> it simply won't build after that presumably.
>
I've spent some time on migrating the Dispatch macOS Travis job to GitHub
Actions and I got stuck on a freeze that I was unable to debug. I found
some working GitHub Actions that are using MacPorts, so as a next step I
would be trying to steal working bits from those. Alternatively, I could
drop MacPorts and use Brew, and either build Cyrus SASL myself, or just
live without it {SASL itself is part of macOS, but it is deprecated, and
the utility programs to manage the DB are missing).
Link to the stuck Action,
https://github.com/jiridanek/qpid-dispatch/runs/1473498467?check_suite_focus=true
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
Jiri Daněk
Re: [NOTICE] Travis CI .org -> .com move, action required.
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 12:02, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 at 17:00, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 at 16:30, Jiri Daněk <jd...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:52 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 at 14:44, Ganesh Murthy <gm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:12 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Short version:
> > > > > > 1) The Travis build jobs will migrate to a new URL, on their .com site
> > > > > > rather than .org, links etc will need to be updated.
> > > > > > 2) Travis have introduced relatively tiny default resource limits for
> > > > > > free users, so you may want to disable Travis on your Github forks to
> > > > > > save them until really needed (or you can apparently individually
> > > > > > apply for a higher limit).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Expanded version:
> > > > > > First up, as some of you may know Travis CI is migrating away from use
> > > > > > of https://travis-ci.org to solely using their other
> > > > > > https://travis-ci.com site. This has been underway for many years at
> > > > > > this point with no real traction, but a final deadline of Dec 31st has
> > > > > > been set for the .org bits to become defunct, and worker nodes have
> > > > > > been migrating across for weeks now, so the point has come a switch is
> > > > > > required.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When done, the existing URLs will just give a landing page saying the
> > > > > > build moved, with a link to go to it. Folks using the existing URLs
> > > > > > for build status etc will need to update their references.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Infra started to migrate some jobs over themselves, and also migrate
> > > > > > the paid ASF concurrency limits plan across for the apache github org.
> > > > > > They decided they didnt want to end up migrating >2000 jobs when many
> > > > > > aren't really used anymore, and so have asked for the remainder that
> > > > > > migrations be requested.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > None of ours appear to have been moved yet, so I have requested [1]
> > > > > > that infra do the migration for these repositories:
> > > > > > qpid-broker-j
> > > > > > qpid-dispatch
> > > > > > qpid-jms
> > > > > > qpid-proton
> > > > > > qpid-proton-j
> > > > > > qpid-site
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for doing this! So it looks like no other additional action is
> > > > > required on our side.
> > > > > Once this migration is complete, we will be as usual able to access the
> > > > > Travis
> > > > > builds from the github <https://github.com/apache/qpid-dispatch> website
> > > > > with the just the one difference that the Travis build URLs
> > > > > will point to the .com website.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Should be the case yep.
> > > >
> > > > > With regards to the resource limits on forks, it looks like we will have
> > > > to
> > > > > wait to see if they automatically
> > > > > enable builds or if they will make us enable it. If they don't enable
> > > > it,
> > > > > I don't plan on enabling it.
> > > > > Again, no action required from our side if they don't enable it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yep.
> > > >
> > > > > Qpid Dispatch has a mac build and it looks like we might have to pay for
> > > > it
> > > > > if we want to keep it around by purchasing what they
> > > > > call credits (1 minute of mac build time costs 50 credits). Do we want to
> > > > > do this? Or are we just going to drop the mac os builds?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We would surely drop it from the Travis build in that case.
> > > >
> > > > GitHub Actions also has MacOS build nodes, so that build workflow
> > > > could be updated to use them if desired.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Dispatch ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-1855
> > >
> > > We'll probably want to make the same change in Proton as well.
> >
> > For the removal from Travis, yep. The GHA build for Proton already
> > runs on OSX currently as you no doubt know.
>
>
> I ended up raising a JIRA for this,
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21154, which has now been
> actioned. All the repository jobs have now been migrated to the .com
> site.
>
> I have prodded the various jobs to run, updating some READMEs and the
> website to use links/badges from the .com site. Once they run, the
> .org site updates to say only that the jobs were migrated and give a
> link to the .com site.
>
> The OSX elements of the Proton and Dispatch builds did execute,
> whereas I expected the job to error immediately. This could be as the
> ASF's plan has some life left (seems pricing migration happens at
> plan-end), or they've got some OSX credits, unclear. I have asked
> about those on the Infra JIRA to see what expectations are going
> forward.
I only got a short 'we pay for extra resources' reply, so I'm still
not too sure overall.
>
> From a quick test I did the migration within the apache github org
> seems to have no effect on our forks, which makes sense. This means
> your forks with .org enabled builds will continue to try building
> there, with its dwindling resources, until it goes defunct on Dec
> 31st. If you dont migrate or enable your fork build on the .com site
> it simply won't build after that presumably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: [NOTICE] Travis CI .org -> .com move, action required.
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 12:02, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 at 17:00, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 at 16:30, Jiri Daněk <jd...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:52 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 at 14:44, Ganesh Murthy <gm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:12 AM Robbie Gemmell <
> > > > robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Short version:
> > > > > > 1) The Travis build jobs will migrate to a new URL, on their .com site
> > > > > > rather than .org, links etc will need to be updated.
> > > > > > 2) Travis have introduced relatively tiny default resource limits for
> > > > > > free users, so you may want to disable Travis on your Github forks to
> > > > > > save them until really needed (or you can apparently individually
> > > > > > apply for a higher limit).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Expanded version:
> > > > > > First up, as some of you may know Travis CI is migrating away from use
> > > > > > of https://travis-ci.org to solely using their other
> > > > > > https://travis-ci.com site. This has been underway for many years at
> > > > > > this point with no real traction, but a final deadline of Dec 31st has
> > > > > > been set for the .org bits to become defunct, and worker nodes have
> > > > > > been migrating across for weeks now, so the point has come a switch is
> > > > > > required.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When done, the existing URLs will just give a landing page saying the
> > > > > > build moved, with a link to go to it. Folks using the existing URLs
> > > > > > for build status etc will need to update their references.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Infra started to migrate some jobs over themselves, and also migrate
> > > > > > the paid ASF concurrency limits plan across for the apache github org.
> > > > > > They decided they didnt want to end up migrating >2000 jobs when many
> > > > > > aren't really used anymore, and so have asked for the remainder that
> > > > > > migrations be requested.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > None of ours appear to have been moved yet, so I have requested [1]
> > > > > > that infra do the migration for these repositories:
> > > > > > qpid-broker-j
> > > > > > qpid-dispatch
> > > > > > qpid-jms
> > > > > > qpid-proton
> > > > > > qpid-proton-j
> > > > > > qpid-site
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for doing this! So it looks like no other additional action is
> > > > > required on our side.
> > > > > Once this migration is complete, we will be as usual able to access the
> > > > > Travis
> > > > > builds from the github <https://github.com/apache/qpid-dispatch> website
> > > > > with the just the one difference that the Travis build URLs
> > > > > will point to the .com website.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Should be the case yep.
> > > >
> > > > > With regards to the resource limits on forks, it looks like we will have
> > > > to
> > > > > wait to see if they automatically
> > > > > enable builds or if they will make us enable it. If they don't enable
> > > > it,
> > > > > I don't plan on enabling it.
> > > > > Again, no action required from our side if they don't enable it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yep.
> > > >
> > > > > Qpid Dispatch has a mac build and it looks like we might have to pay for
> > > > it
> > > > > if we want to keep it around by purchasing what they
> > > > > call credits (1 minute of mac build time costs 50 credits). Do we want to
> > > > > do this? Or are we just going to drop the mac os builds?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We would surely drop it from the Travis build in that case.
> > > >
> > > > GitHub Actions also has MacOS build nodes, so that build workflow
> > > > could be updated to use them if desired.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Dispatch ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-1855
> > >
> > > We'll probably want to make the same change in Proton as well.
> >
> > For the removal from Travis, yep. The GHA build for Proton already
> > runs on OSX currently as you no doubt know.
>
>
> I ended up raising a JIRA for this,
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21154, which has now been
> actioned. All the repository jobs have now been migrated to the .com
> site.
>
> I have prodded the various jobs to run, updating some READMEs and the
> website to use links/badges from the .com site. Once they run, the
> .org site updates to say only that the jobs were migrated and give a
> link to the .com site.
>
> The OSX elements of the Proton and Dispatch builds did execute,
> whereas I expected the job to error immediately. This could be as the
> ASF's plan has some life left (seems pricing migration happens at
> plan-end), or they've got some OSX credits, unclear. I have asked
> about those on the Infra JIRA to see what expectations are going
> forward.
I only got a short 'we pay for extra resources' reply, so I'm still
not too sure overall.
>
> From a quick test I did the migration within the apache github org
> seems to have no effect on our forks, which makes sense. This means
> your forks with .org enabled builds will continue to try building
> there, with its dwindling resources, until it goes defunct on Dec
> 31st. If you dont migrate or enable your fork build on the .com site
> it simply won't build after that presumably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: [NOTICE] Travis CI .org -> .com move, action required.
Posted by Jiri Daněk <jd...@redhat.com>.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 1:12 PM Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > Qpid Dispatch has a mac build and it looks like we might have to
> pay for
> > > > it
> > > > > if we want to keep it around by purchasing what they
> > > > > call credits (1 minute of mac build time costs 50 credits). Do we
> want to
> > > > > do this? Or are we just going to drop the mac os builds?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We would surely drop it from the Travis build in that case.
> > > >
> > > > GitHub Actions also has MacOS build nodes, so that build workflow
> > > > could be updated to use them if desired.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Dispatch ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-1855
> > >
> > > We'll probably want to make the same change in Proton as well.
> >
> > For the removal from Travis, yep. The GHA build for Proton already
> > runs on OSX currently as you no doubt know.
>
>
> I ended up raising a JIRA for this,
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21154, which has now been
> actioned. All the repository jobs have now been migrated to the .com
> site.
>
> I have prodded the various jobs to run, updating some READMEs and the
> website to use links/badges from the .com site. Once they run, the
> .org site updates to say only that the jobs were migrated and give a
> link to the .com site.
>
> The OSX elements of the Proton and Dispatch builds did execute,
> whereas I expected the job to error immediately. This could be as the
> ASF's plan has some life left (seems pricing migration happens at
> plan-end), or they've got some OSX credits, unclear. I have asked
> about those on the Infra JIRA to see what expectations are going
> forward.
>
> From a quick test I did the migration within the apache github org
> seems to have no effect on our forks, which makes sense. This means
> your forks with .org enabled builds will continue to try building
> there, with its dwindling resources, until it goes defunct on Dec
> 31st. If you dont migrate or enable your fork build on the .com site
> it simply won't build after that presumably.
>
I've spent some time on migrating the Dispatch macOS Travis job to GitHub
Actions and I got stuck on a freeze that I was unable to debug. I found
some working GitHub Actions that are using MacPorts, so as a next step I
would be trying to steal working bits from those. Alternatively, I could
drop MacPorts and use Brew, and either build Cyrus SASL myself, or just
live without it {SASL itself is part of macOS, but it is deprecated, and
the utility programs to manage the DB are missing).
Link to the stuck Action,
https://github.com/jiridanek/qpid-dispatch/runs/1473498467?check_suite_focus=true
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
Jiri Daněk