You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mahout.apache.org by Andrew Musselman <ak...@apache.org> on 2015/04/17 03:28:15 UTC
Re: Additional Travis-CI Capacity
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 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
> >
>