You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to builds@apache.org by "P. Ottlinger" <po...@apache.org> on 2022/09/01 09:52:24 UTC
Building with Travis - anyone?
Hi,
over the years Travis seems to have degraded: builds fail regularly due
to technical issues or the inability to download artifacts from Maven
central that are mirrored onto Travis resources.
Does any other project have stable Travis builds?
One example of failures is
https://app.travis-ci.com/github/apache/creadur-rat/builds/255057086
where the console output seems to be done in a different way.
GithubAction builds are green, so is ASF Jenkins and local builds ....
Thanks for any opinions, links or hints ....
Phil
Re: Building with Travis - anyone?
Posted by Allen Wittenauer <aw...@apache.org>.
> On Sep 1, 2022, at 2:52 AM, P. Ottlinger <po...@apache.org> wrote:
> over the years Travis seems to have degraded: builds fail regularly due to technical issues or the inability to download artifacts from Maven central that are mirrored onto Travis resources.
>
> Does any other project have stable Travis builds?
>
...
>
> GithubAction builds are green, so is ASF Jenkins and local builds ....
>
> Thanks for any opinions, links or hints ....
>
Apache Yetus still has Travis builds and Github Actions running from the project's repo. I also run the other Apache Yetus-supported CIs from my personal account regularly so that the project doesn't expose the rest of the ASF projects to them. (See 'Automation' at https://yetus.apache.org/documentation/in-progress/precommit/#optional-plug-ins for current list.) The different CIs run nearly the same pipeline
Anecdotally, Travis is generally the worst performing and most unreliable out of all of them, on some days by a fairly large factor. To the point that I've thought about raising a PR to remove support. So no, it isn't just Creadur.
Travis has also been wildly unpredictable with changes. (e.g., limits on log sizes just got introduced in the past year or so, I seem to recall a lower memory limit added, etc) It might be a new one triggering if these failures are recent. But honestly: unless the project _really_ needs Travis, I'd recommend migrating off of it. While it sits somewhere in between Jenkins and Github Actions on the complexity scale, one is probably better off either dumbing down the build for GHA or going full bore into Jenkins for the heavier needs. (full disclosure: I haven't kept up with the ASF jenkins config since I run my own instance for Yetus testing, but I'm assuming it is still more stable than Travis given there has been little squawking on builds@ lately. Haha.)
Re: Building with Travis - anyone?
Posted by Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org>.
We use Travis-CI for a couple non-x86 builds. They seem reasonably
stable these days, though it took some time to bring them to that state
because of apparently very limited execution resources, leading to
timeouts or crashes (especially on s390x).
https://app.travis-ci.com/github/apache/arrow/builds
Regards
Antoine.
Le 01/09/2022 à 11:52, P. Ottlinger a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> over the years Travis seems to have degraded: builds fail regularly due
> to technical issues or the inability to download artifacts from Maven
> central that are mirrored onto Travis resources.
>
> Does any other project have stable Travis builds?
>
> One example of failures is
> https://app.travis-ci.com/github/apache/creadur-rat/builds/255057086
> where the console output seems to be done in a different way.
>
> GithubAction builds are green, so is ASF Jenkins and local builds ....
>
> Thanks for any opinions, links or hints ....
>
> Phil
Re: Building with Travis - anyone?
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>.
We moved out in Airflow from Travis to GA 2 years ago - because for us it
started to degrade back then. We never looked back.
There are a few docs and on-going discussions that you might want to check
out as well Phil:
* The "status" and "some overview" - look here
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BUILDS/GitHub+Actions+status -
this is a bit old page but is still largely "current" (I keep it updated
semi-regularly). We had some issues with somewhat limited (though
generously provided by GitHub as sponsorship to ASF) shared resources
(namely the number of build jobs we can run in parallel for GitHub
Actions). There were also a number of potential security issues and
watchouts that we saw ~1/2 years ago, but GitHub released a number of
improvements in this area since, so if you follow the practices outlined in
this document, you should be fine (as long as you are not using self-hosted
runners - see below)
* The resource problem is still there and is hitting various problems
occasionally - especially that there are still occasional usage spikes that
seem to influence everyone - and the more projects of ASF will switch, the
more we will get it (unless in the meantime some infra/github solution is
finalized/improved).
* Recently Lari (cc:) - from Pulsar is looking more closely into the
"cross-project" usage. There is an open INFRA JIRA ticket
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-23633 about improving
visibility of resource usage. Unfortunately, GitHub does not give us nor
INFRA enough reporting capabilities, but improving visibility on resource
usage. In Airflow we developed a very rudimentary tool that uses the (poor
in this case) API of GitHub to gather some "rough" data about that and
INFRA is looking into bringing that (possibly way better and more
professional :) to the INFRA team. Slack conversation here:
https://the-asf.slack.com/archives/CBX4TSBQ8/p1661854162053159?thread_ts=1661512133.913279&cid=CBX4TSBQ8
* There is an ongoing project of Apache Beam (and little help from the
Airflow team) where we try to come up with a reusable (and most of all
secure) self-hosted runners approach. Link to slack channel:
https://the-asf.slack.com/archives/C036SV0MAM9. The security of self-hosted
runners is still an unsolved problem and you should not use them for Public
projects unless you add some extra protection IMHO (or know exactly what
risks you are signing up for). We have some workarounds in Airflow but they
are difficult to apply by others, so Apache Beam and INFRA attempt to make
it reusable.
J.
On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 12:39 PM Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Over at Apache Commons, we've switched to GitHub Actions. We did use Travis
> for a while but it makes more sense to me to use GitHub since it is fast,
> reliable, and where we mirror our repositories.
>
> Gary
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2022, 05:52 P. Ottlinger <po...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > over the years Travis seems to have degraded: builds fail regularly due
> > to technical issues or the inability to download artifacts from Maven
> > central that are mirrored onto Travis resources.
> >
> > Does any other project have stable Travis builds?
> >
> > One example of failures is
> > https://app.travis-ci.com/github/apache/creadur-rat/builds/255057086
> > where the console output seems to be done in a different way.
> >
> > GithubAction builds are green, so is ASF Jenkins and local builds ....
> >
> > Thanks for any opinions, links or hints ....
> >
> > Phil
> >
>
Re: Building with Travis - anyone?
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
Over at Apache Commons, we've switched to GitHub Actions. We did use Travis
for a while but it makes more sense to me to use GitHub since it is fast,
reliable, and where we mirror our repositories.
Gary
On Thu, Sep 1, 2022, 05:52 P. Ottlinger <po...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> over the years Travis seems to have degraded: builds fail regularly due
> to technical issues or the inability to download artifacts from Maven
> central that are mirrored onto Travis resources.
>
> Does any other project have stable Travis builds?
>
> One example of failures is
> https://app.travis-ci.com/github/apache/creadur-rat/builds/255057086
> where the console output seems to be done in a different way.
>
> GithubAction builds are green, so is ASF Jenkins and local builds ....
>
> Thanks for any opinions, links or hints ....
>
> Phil
>