You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> on 2015/10/29 10:33:50 UTC
[PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github
Guys and dolls,
We have been having travis builds for a while now and they seem to generate
more work then help. There are a lot of time-outs, (false positive) and
when a suite passes it is often because all tests where skipped (false
negative). In addition, and this may be just me, I've never been able to
pinpoint a problem based on travis output.
therefore:
I move that we completely disable travis runs on PRs to the cloudstack
project. This will reduce confusion about whether a PR is good and will
reduce the need for willing contributers to force push their branch over
and over.
--
Daan
Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
+1'ed
and further
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 4:55 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>
> > 2 hours before this message was sent, there was a message about
> > jenkins being unreliable.
>
both are not perfect, travis is costing RMs and their minions, and
contributors time!
> >
> > So I am starting to think that something other than Travis or Jenkins
> > is the problem.
>
No, Jenkins and Travis are problems! maintenance wise they are costing
effort we are not putting into it.
>
> > --David
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Guys and dolls,
> > >
> > > We have been having travis builds for a while now and they seem to
> > generate
> > > more work then help. There are a lot of time-outs, (false positive) and
> > > when a suite passes it is often because all tests where skipped (false
> > > negative). In addition, and this may be just me, I've never been able
> to
> > > pinpoint a problem based on travis output.
> > >
> > > therefore:
> > >
> > > I move that we completely disable travis runs on PRs to the cloudstack
> > > project. This will reduce confusion about whether a PR is good and will
> > > reduce the need for willing contributers to force push their branch
> over
> > > and over.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daan
> >
>
--
Daan
Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github
Posted by Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>.
Jenkins though unstable is right at what it does. That is, if its green,
the build works fine, there are no check style errors, there are no new
PMD/Findbugs errors etc.
On the other hand, Travis green/red doesnt say anything at the moment. It
can be red due to a timeout and sometimes its green because it didnt
actually run any tests. showing green without actually testing anything is
dangerous and hence, I +1 disabling it until we can reliably fix it.
@David, Nope they are not related. Jenkins is unstable for reasons we dont
understand and cant see(not related to code but to the jenkins
environment). triggering a "rebuild" there also doesnt work as it builds on
the base branch instead of applying the PR. The only way to get it running
again is force pushing the PR and each run takes more than 3 hrs. sometimes
it requires as many as 4 or 5 force pushes to see it happy and its very
frustrating. Is it possible for some in ASF infra to look at it?
Travis I think is to do with complex configuration we did. But, right now,
no one has the time to look at it and get it fixed. But, this is something
we can fix and is under our control.
~Rajani
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 4:55 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> 2 hours before this message was sent, there was a message about
> jenkins being unreliable.
>
> So I am starting to think that something other than Travis or Jenkins
> is the problem.
>
> --David
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Guys and dolls,
> >
> > We have been having travis builds for a while now and they seem to
> generate
> > more work then help. There are a lot of time-outs, (false positive) and
> > when a suite passes it is often because all tests where skipped (false
> > negative). In addition, and this may be just me, I've never been able to
> > pinpoint a problem based on travis output.
> >
> > therefore:
> >
> > I move that we completely disable travis runs on PRs to the cloudstack
> > project. This will reduce confusion about whether a PR is good and will
> > reduce the need for willing contributers to force push their branch over
> > and over.
> >
> > --
> > Daan
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
2 hours before this message was sent, there was a message about
jenkins being unreliable.
So I am starting to think that something other than Travis or Jenkins
is the problem.
--David
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Guys and dolls,
>
> We have been having travis builds for a while now and they seem to generate
> more work then help. There are a lot of time-outs, (false positive) and
> when a suite passes it is often because all tests where skipped (false
> negative). In addition, and this may be just me, I've never been able to
> pinpoint a problem based on travis output.
>
> therefore:
>
> I move that we completely disable travis runs on PRs to the cloudstack
> project. This will reduce confusion about whether a PR is good and will
> reduce the need for willing contributers to force push their branch over
> and over.
>
> --
> Daan
Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
> >>> On Oct 29, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> >>> Sebastien, it is not urgent but costing us time
> >>
> >> so just don;t look at it ?
> >>
> > no-op. it is there telling people that everything worked and if failed
> we
> > get questions about it.
> >
> > and …
>
> There is a difference between abandoning Travis and not looking at the
> results for 4.6 release.
>
> My gut reaction is to try to understand why Travis is behaving strangely
> and fix it, rather than abandon.
>
> By “not look at it”, I am saying don’t base your review + merge on master
> for 4.6 if you have a good case for it.
>
So we have to consider it browse through the result to find once again it
was a false negative or - positive to make a case for ignoring it.
>>> and more important costing
> >>> time of 'innocent' contributors.
> >>
> >> What do you mean by that, I am not understanding.
> >>
> > people get questions to force push to make travis happy and we have a
> > policy to not ignore travis without comments on the reason for doing so.
> >
>
> The first time I saw Travis was not behaving and saw a comment from
> someone else about it was on my own PR.
>
I think you did some. especially all the requests to force push.
>>> So ... revert at your will.
--
Daan
Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
> On Oct 29, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Oct 29, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sebastien, it is not urgent but costing us time
>>
>> so just don;t look at it ?
>>
> no-op. it is there telling people that everything worked and if failed we
> get questions about it.
>
> and …
There is a difference between abandoning Travis and not looking at the results for 4.6 release.
My gut reaction is to try to understand why Travis is behaving strangely and fix it, rather than abandon.
By “not look at it”, I am saying don’t base your review + merge on master for 4.6 if you have a good case for it.
>
>
>
>>> and more important costing
>>> time of 'innocent' contributors.
>>
>> What do you mean by that, I am not understanding.
>>
> people get questions to force push to make travis happy and we have a
> policy to not ignore travis without comments on the reason for doing so.
>
The first time I saw Travis was not behaving and saw a comment from someone else about it was on my own PR.
Maybe I skipped some comments on PR but I did not see anything like “Travis is crazy…don’t look at it”.
Basically, if I can use a free service without needed maintenance, I would like to use it.
It’s not like we don’t have issues with Jenkins jobs.
>
>
>>
>>> So ... revert at your will.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not surprisingly I like Travis, because it outsources the “tests” and
>> that
>>>> we can fix them by editing .travis.yml, which can be done by someone
>>>> without access to the Jenkins servers/slaves.
>>>>
>>>> At the very least I agree with Miguel which should keep the mvn build,
>> and
>>>> possible rat etc…
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I think that before dumping Travis we should look into why
>> the
>>>> tests time out or are skipped. Its strange and I have not had time to
>> check
>>>> what’s going on.
>>>>
>>>> So I understand why you guys are proposing this, at this point I am:
>>>>
>>>> -1 (but I can revert if you guys feel strongly and feel its urgent).
>>>>
>>>> I’d like to see 4.6 released and then we can check what’s happening with
>>>> Travis.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The apache build reports rats, findbugs, pmd, coverage etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Miguel Ferreira <
>>>>> MFerreira@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It would add speed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just for running maven we could move the travis build to their docker
>>>>>> based infra which is faster than what we use now.
>>>>>> I’m guess that the apache build does more stuff like packaging RPMs,
>> but
>>>>>> I’m not sure there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> \ Miguel Ferreira
>>>>>> mferreira@schubergphilis.com<ma...@schubergphilis.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29 Oct 2015, at 11:27, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>> daan.hoogland@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Miguel Ferreira <
>>>>>> MFerreira@schubergphilis.com<ma...@schubergphilis.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, I would still find it valuable to have travis run a single
>>>>>> command:
>>>>>> mvn clean isntall -P developer,systemvv
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is because, still many people commenting on PRs don’t even do
>> that.
>>>>>> In addition this would be faster than the Jenkins build, so it would
>>>>>> provide faster feedback.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the risk of turning this into a discuss thread; It sound a
>>>> reasonable
>>>>>> request but what would that add to the analysis run at apache?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Daan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Daan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daan
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daan
Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > On Oct 29, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Sebastien, it is not urgent but costing us time
>
> so just don;t look at it ?
>
no-op. it is there telling people that everything worked and if failed we
get questions about it.
and ...
> > and more important costing
> > time of 'innocent' contributors.
>
> What do you mean by that, I am not understanding.
>
people get questions to force push to make travis happy and we have a
policy to not ignore travis without comments on the reason for doing so.
>
> > So ... revert at your will.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Not surprisingly I like Travis, because it outsources the “tests” and
> that
> >> we can fix them by editing .travis.yml, which can be done by someone
> >> without access to the Jenkins servers/slaves.
> >>
> >> At the very least I agree with Miguel which should keep the mvn build,
> and
> >> possible rat etc…
> >>
> >> Personally, I think that before dumping Travis we should look into why
> the
> >> tests time out or are skipped. Its strange and I have not had time to
> check
> >> what’s going on.
> >>
> >> So I understand why you guys are proposing this, at this point I am:
> >>
> >> -1 (but I can revert if you guys feel strongly and feel its urgent).
> >>
> >> I’d like to see 4.6 released and then we can check what’s happening with
> >> Travis.
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Oct 29, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The apache build reports rats, findbugs, pmd, coverage etc.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Miguel Ferreira <
> >>> MFerreira@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It would add speed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just for running maven we could move the travis build to their docker
> >>>> based infra which is faster than what we use now.
> >>>> I’m guess that the apache build does more stuff like packaging RPMs,
> but
> >>>> I’m not sure there.
> >>>>
> >>>> \ Miguel Ferreira
> >>>> mferreira@schubergphilis.com<ma...@schubergphilis.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 29 Oct 2015, at 11:27, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> >> <mailto:
> >>>> daan.hoogland@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Miguel Ferreira <
> >>>> MFerreira@schubergphilis.com<ma...@schubergphilis.com>>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> However, I would still find it valuable to have travis run a single
> >>>> command:
> >>>> mvn clean isntall -P developer,systemvv
> >>>>
> >>>> That is because, still many people commenting on PRs don’t even do
> that.
> >>>> In addition this would be faster than the Jenkins build, so it would
> >>>> provide faster feedback.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> At the risk of turning this into a discuss thread; It sound a
> >> reasonable
> >>>> request but what would that add to the analysis run at apache?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Daan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Daan
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daan
>
>
--
Daan
Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
> On Oct 29, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sebastien, it is not urgent but costing us time
so just don;t look at it ?
> and more important costing
> time of 'innocent' contributors.
What do you mean by that, I am not understanding.
> So ... revert at your will.
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Not surprisingly I like Travis, because it outsources the “tests” and that
>> we can fix them by editing .travis.yml, which can be done by someone
>> without access to the Jenkins servers/slaves.
>>
>> At the very least I agree with Miguel which should keep the mvn build, and
>> possible rat etc…
>>
>> Personally, I think that before dumping Travis we should look into why the
>> tests time out or are skipped. Its strange and I have not had time to check
>> what’s going on.
>>
>> So I understand why you guys are proposing this, at this point I am:
>>
>> -1 (but I can revert if you guys feel strongly and feel its urgent).
>>
>> I’d like to see 4.6 released and then we can check what’s happening with
>> Travis.
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 29, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The apache build reports rats, findbugs, pmd, coverage etc.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Miguel Ferreira <
>>> MFerreira@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It would add speed.
>>>>
>>>> Just for running maven we could move the travis build to their docker
>>>> based infra which is faster than what we use now.
>>>> I’m guess that the apache build does more stuff like packaging RPMs, but
>>>> I’m not sure there.
>>>>
>>>> \ Miguel Ferreira
>>>> mferreira@schubergphilis.com<ma...@schubergphilis.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 29 Oct 2015, at 11:27, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
>> <mailto:
>>>> daan.hoogland@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Miguel Ferreira <
>>>> MFerreira@schubergphilis.com<ma...@schubergphilis.com>>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> However, I would still find it valuable to have travis run a single
>>>> command:
>>>> mvn clean isntall -P developer,systemvv
>>>>
>>>> That is because, still many people commenting on PRs don’t even do that.
>>>> In addition this would be faster than the Jenkins build, so it would
>>>> provide faster feedback.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At the risk of turning this into a discuss thread; It sound a
>> reasonable
>>>> request but what would that add to the analysis run at apache?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Daan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daan
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daan
Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
Sebastien, it is not urgent but costing us time and more important costing
time of 'innocent' contributors. So ... revert at your will.
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Not surprisingly I like Travis, because it outsources the “tests” and that
> we can fix them by editing .travis.yml, which can be done by someone
> without access to the Jenkins servers/slaves.
>
> At the very least I agree with Miguel which should keep the mvn build, and
> possible rat etc…
>
> Personally, I think that before dumping Travis we should look into why the
> tests time out or are skipped. Its strange and I have not had time to check
> what’s going on.
>
> So I understand why you guys are proposing this, at this point I am:
>
> -1 (but I can revert if you guys feel strongly and feel its urgent).
>
> I’d like to see 4.6 released and then we can check what’s happening with
> Travis.
>
>
> > On Oct 29, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > The apache build reports rats, findbugs, pmd, coverage etc.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Miguel Ferreira <
> > MFerreira@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It would add speed.
> >>
> >> Just for running maven we could move the travis build to their docker
> >> based infra which is faster than what we use now.
> >> I’m guess that the apache build does more stuff like packaging RPMs, but
> >> I’m not sure there.
> >>
> >> \ Miguel Ferreira
> >> mferreira@schubergphilis.com<ma...@schubergphilis.com>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 29 Oct 2015, at 11:27, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> <mailto:
> >> daan.hoogland@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Miguel Ferreira <
> >> MFerreira@schubergphilis.com<ma...@schubergphilis.com>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> However, I would still find it valuable to have travis run a single
> >> command:
> >> mvn clean isntall -P developer,systemvv
> >>
> >> That is because, still many people commenting on PRs don’t even do that.
> >> In addition this would be faster than the Jenkins build, so it would
> >> provide faster feedback.
> >>
> >>
> >> At the risk of turning this into a discuss thread; It sound a
> reasonable
> >> request but what would that add to the analysis run at apache?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daan
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daan
>
>
--
Daan
Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
Not surprisingly I like Travis, because it outsources the “tests” and that we can fix them by editing .travis.yml, which can be done by someone without access to the Jenkins servers/slaves.
At the very least I agree with Miguel which should keep the mvn build, and possible rat etc…
Personally, I think that before dumping Travis we should look into why the tests time out or are skipped. Its strange and I have not had time to check what’s going on.
So I understand why you guys are proposing this, at this point I am:
-1 (but I can revert if you guys feel strongly and feel its urgent).
I’d like to see 4.6 released and then we can check what’s happening with Travis.
> On Oct 29, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The apache build reports rats, findbugs, pmd, coverage etc.
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Miguel Ferreira <
> MFerreira@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
>
>> It would add speed.
>>
>> Just for running maven we could move the travis build to their docker
>> based infra which is faster than what we use now.
>> I’m guess that the apache build does more stuff like packaging RPMs, but
>> I’m not sure there.
>>
>> \ Miguel Ferreira
>> mferreira@schubergphilis.com<ma...@schubergphilis.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 29 Oct 2015, at 11:27, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com<mailto:
>> daan.hoogland@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Miguel Ferreira <
>> MFerreira@schubergphilis.com<ma...@schubergphilis.com>> wrote:
>>
>> However, I would still find it valuable to have travis run a single
>> command:
>> mvn clean isntall -P developer,systemvv
>>
>> That is because, still many people commenting on PRs don’t even do that.
>> In addition this would be faster than the Jenkins build, so it would
>> provide faster feedback.
>>
>>
>> At the risk of turning this into a discuss thread; It sound a reasonable
>> request but what would that add to the analysis run at apache?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daan
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daan
Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
The apache build reports rats, findbugs, pmd, coverage etc.
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Miguel Ferreira <
MFerreira@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> It would add speed.
>
> Just for running maven we could move the travis build to their docker
> based infra which is faster than what we use now.
> I’m guess that the apache build does more stuff like packaging RPMs, but
> I’m not sure there.
>
> \ Miguel Ferreira
> mferreira@schubergphilis.com<ma...@schubergphilis.com>
>
>
>
>
> On 29 Oct 2015, at 11:27, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com<mailto:
> daan.hoogland@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Miguel Ferreira <
> MFerreira@schubergphilis.com<ma...@schubergphilis.com>> wrote:
>
> However, I would still find it valuable to have travis run a single
> command:
> mvn clean isntall -P developer,systemvv
>
> That is because, still many people commenting on PRs don’t even do that.
> In addition this would be faster than the Jenkins build, so it would
> provide faster feedback.
>
>
> At the risk of turning this into a discuss thread; It sound a reasonable
> request but what would that add to the analysis run at apache?
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>
>
--
Daan
Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github
Posted by Miguel Ferreira <MF...@schubergphilis.com>.
It would add speed.
Just for running maven we could move the travis build to their docker based infra which is faster than what we use now.
I’m guess that the apache build does more stuff like packaging RPMs, but I’m not sure there.
\ Miguel Ferreira
mferreira@schubergphilis.com<ma...@schubergphilis.com>
On 29 Oct 2015, at 11:27, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Miguel Ferreira <
MFerreira@schubergphilis.com<ma...@schubergphilis.com>> wrote:
However, I would still find it valuable to have travis run a single
command:
mvn clean isntall -P developer,systemvv
That is because, still many people commenting on PRs don’t even do that.
In addition this would be faster than the Jenkins build, so it would
provide faster feedback.
At the risk of turning this into a discuss thread; It sound a reasonable
request but what would that add to the analysis run at apache?
--
Daan
Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Miguel Ferreira <
MFerreira@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
> However, I would still find it valuable to have travis run a single
> command:
> mvn clean isntall -P developer,systemvv
>
> That is because, still many people commenting on PRs don’t even do that.
> In addition this would be faster than the Jenkins build, so it would
> provide faster feedback.
>
At the risk of turning this into a discuss thread; It sound a reasonable
request but what would that add to the analysis run at apache?
--
Daan
Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github
Posted by Miguel Ferreira <MF...@schubergphilis.com>.
I do agree that at the moment Travis is either creating false sense of security when it is green, or a burden for contributors when it is red, because most of the time it goes red for no good reason.
However, I would still find it valuable to have travis run a single command:
mvn clean isntall -P developer,systemvv
That is because, still many people commenting on PRs don’t even do that. In addition this would be faster than the Jenkins build, so it would provide faster feedback.
Cheers,
\ Miguel Ferreira
mferreira@schubergphilis.com<ma...@schubergphilis.com>
On 29 Oct 2015, at 10:41, Remi Bergsma <RB...@schubergphilis.com>> wrote:
+1 it doesn’t help like this.
I look at actual test result people post combined with code reviews. Plus an OK from Jenkins should be more than enough to judge a PR.
Let’s make Jenkins more reliable, that would help as well.
Regards,
Remi
On 29/10/15 10:33, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Guys and dolls,
We have been having travis builds for a while now and they seem to generate
more work then help. There are a lot of time-outs, (false positive) and
when a suite passes it is often because all tests where skipped (false
negative). In addition, and this may be just me, I've never been able to
pinpoint a problem based on travis output.
therefore:
I move that we completely disable travis runs on PRs to the cloudstack
project. This will reduce confusion about whether a PR is good and will
reduce the need for willing contributers to force push their branch over
and over.
--
Daan
Re: [PROPOSAL] remove travis pull request checks from github
Posted by Remi Bergsma <RB...@schubergphilis.com>.
+1 it doesn’t help like this.
I look at actual test result people post combined with code reviews. Plus an OK from Jenkins should be more than enough to judge a PR.
Let’s make Jenkins more reliable, that would help as well.
Regards,
Remi
On 29/10/15 10:33, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Guys and dolls,
>
>We have been having travis builds for a while now and they seem to generate
>more work then help. There are a lot of time-outs, (false positive) and
>when a suite passes it is often because all tests where skipped (false
>negative). In addition, and this may be just me, I've never been able to
>pinpoint a problem based on travis output.
>
>therefore:
>
>I move that we completely disable travis runs on PRs to the cloudstack
>project. This will reduce confusion about whether a PR is good and will
>reduce the need for willing contributers to force push their branch over
>and over.
>
>--
>Daan