You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@bigtop.apache.org by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> on 2015/04/17 00:20:39 UTC
Fwd: Additional Travis-CI Capacity
Is this something that we may want to look at?
Thanks,
Roman.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
Date: Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:33 PM
Subject: Additional Travis-CI Capacity
To: "builds@apache.org" <bu...@apache.org>
FYI:
https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/apache_gains_additional_travis_ci
Re: Additional Travis-CI Capacity
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
It is a piece of cake for simple builds.
It required setting up a config file that is seen by travis ci on the
github repo.
If you use a maven build, this is dead simple. Here, for instance, is the
entire config for the t-digest process from the .travis.yml file:
language: java
jdk:
- oraclejdk7
- openjdk7
I had to tell travis to look at the project but that was it. Much simpler
than, say, Jenkins. Bound to be less flexible as well, but if it does what
I want and is more reliable because of fewer corner cases, how bad can it
be to lose flexibility that I wouldn't use?
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Andrew Musselman <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
> We're asking ourselves the same thing on dev@mahout.
>
> On Thursday, April 16, 2015, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > How much work it is to re-implement everything in the new platform?
> Anyone
> > has
> > any experience with it?
> >
> > Cos
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 05:20PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > > Is this something that we may want to look at?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Roman.
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: David Nalley <david@gnsa.us <javascript:;>>
> > > Date: Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:33 PM
> > > Subject: Additional Travis-CI Capacity
> > > To: "builds@apache.org <javascript:;>" <builds@apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > FYI:
> > >
> > > https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/apache_gains_additional_travis_ci
> >
>
Re: Additional Travis-CI Capacity
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
It is a piece of cake for simple builds.
It required setting up a config file that is seen by travis ci on the
github repo.
If you use a maven build, this is dead simple. Here, for instance, is the
entire config for the t-digest process from the .travis.yml file:
language: java
jdk:
- oraclejdk7
- openjdk7
I had to tell travis to look at the project but that was it. Much simpler
than, say, Jenkins. Bound to be less flexible as well, but if it does what
I want and is more reliable because of fewer corner cases, how bad can it
be to lose flexibility that I wouldn't use?
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Andrew Musselman <ak...@apache.org> wrote:
> We're asking ourselves the same thing on dev@mahout.
>
> On Thursday, April 16, 2015, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > How much work it is to re-implement everything in the new platform?
> Anyone
> > has
> > any experience with it?
> >
> > Cos
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 05:20PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > > Is this something that we may want to look at?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Roman.
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: David Nalley <david@gnsa.us <javascript:;>>
> > > Date: Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:33 PM
> > > Subject: Additional Travis-CI Capacity
> > > To: "builds@apache.org <javascript:;>" <builds@apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > FYI:
> > >
> > > https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/apache_gains_additional_travis_ci
> >
>
Re: Additional Travis-CI Capacity
Posted by Andrew Musselman <ak...@apache.org>.
We're asking ourselves the same thing on dev@mahout.
On Thursday, April 16, 2015, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> How much work it is to re-implement everything in the new platform? Anyone
> has
> any experience with it?
>
> Cos
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 05:20PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > Is this something that we may want to look at?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: David Nalley <david@gnsa.us <javascript:;>>
> > Date: Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:33 PM
> > Subject: Additional Travis-CI Capacity
> > To: "builds@apache.org <javascript:;>" <builds@apache.org <javascript:;>
> >
> >
> >
> > FYI:
> >
> > https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/apache_gains_additional_travis_ci
>
Re: Additional Travis-CI Capacity
Posted by Andrew Musselman <ak...@apache.org>.
We're asking ourselves the same thing on dev@mahout.
On Thursday, April 16, 2015, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> How much work it is to re-implement everything in the new platform? Anyone
> has
> any experience with it?
>
> Cos
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 05:20PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > Is this something that we may want to look at?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: David Nalley <david@gnsa.us <javascript:;>>
> > Date: Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:33 PM
> > Subject: Additional Travis-CI Capacity
> > To: "builds@apache.org <javascript:;>" <builds@apache.org <javascript:;>
> >
> >
> >
> > FYI:
> >
> > https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/apache_gains_additional_travis_ci
>
Re: Fwd: Additional Travis-CI Capacity
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
How much work it is to re-implement everything in the new platform? Anyone has
any experience with it?
Cos
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 05:20PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> Is this something that we may want to look at?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
> Date: Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:33 PM
> Subject: Additional Travis-CI Capacity
> To: "builds@apache.org" <bu...@apache.org>
>
>
> FYI:
>
> https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/apache_gains_additional_travis_ci
Re: Fwd: Additional Travis-CI Capacity
Posted by jay vyas <ja...@gmail.com>.
I have a feeling the CI will evolve organically over the next few weeks and
months...
I think Travis will be a great resource to play with for the itest and
blueprint apps and so on.
For other rpm deb builds and docker tests we will need to use our own beefy
servers I would think ?
On Apr 16, 2015 5:21 PM, "Roman Shaposhnik" <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> Is this something that we may want to look at?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
> Date: Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:33 PM
> Subject: Additional Travis-CI Capacity
> To: "builds@apache.org" <bu...@apache.org>
>
>
> FYI:
>
> https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/apache_gains_additional_travis_ci
>