activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Using Travis CI for Artemis PR builds
Date Thu, 15 Feb 2018 14:24:05 GMT
> It looks like you've got your builds configured to use the same directory
for all builds of the Jenkins job, rather than using a different directory
for each build (5103, 5104, etc.)...

I've looked through the build configuration and couldn't find anything
specifically related to this.  How would I know if the build is configured
to use the same directory or not?


Justin

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:08 PM, Tim Bain <tbain@alumni.duke.edu> wrote:

> I'm in no way trying to discourage you guys from evaluating Travis CI.
> However...
>
> There are currently 4 builds that are in a failed state on the history of
> that job:
>
>    -
>    https://builds.apache.org/view/A/view/ActiveMQ/job/
> ActiveMQ-Artemis-PR-Build/5111/consoleFull
>    - Failed due to "Could not transfer artifact
>    com.google.code.maven-replacer-plugin:replacer:pom:1.5.3 from/to
> central (
>    https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2):
>    /home/jenkins/.m2/repository/com/google/code/maven-
> replacer-plugin/replacer/1.5.3/replacer-1.5.3.pom.part.lock
>    (No such file or directory)" - This might in fact be environmental, it's
>    hard to tell.
>    -
>    https://builds.apache.org/view/A/view/ActiveMQ/job/
> ActiveMQ-Artemis-PR-Build/5103/console
>    - Failed due to "failed to write new configuration file
>    /home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/workspace/ActiveMQ-Artemis-PR-
> Build/.git/config.lock"
>    - It looks like you've got your builds configured to use the same
> directory
>    for all builds of the Jenkins job, rather than using a different
> directory
>    for each build (5103, 5104, etc.), and if that's true, it seems very
>    expected that concurrent builds would fail with errors like this one. Is
>    there a reason you're not checking out the code into a directory that's
>    specific to the individual build being done, to allow them to operate in
>    parallel without interfering with one another? Or am I misreading
> something
>    about the log output?
>    -
>    https://builds.apache.org/view/A/view/ActiveMQ/job/
> ActiveMQ-Artemis-PR-Build/5104/consoleFull
>    - Failed due to checkstyle violations. Seems bona fide, and would not be
>    fixed by a move to Travis CI.
>    -
>    https://builds.apache.org/view/A/view/ActiveMQ/job/
> ActiveMQ-Artemis-PR-Build/5105/console
>    - Failed due to checkstyle violations. Seems bona fide, and would not be
>    fixed by a move to Travis CI.
>
> This is obviously a very small sample size, and you guys have been watching
> these builds for far longer than the 10 minutes I've put into it just now,
> so there's definitely a chance that today's builds aren't representative.
> But do consider whether the "environmental" problems you're running into
> with Jenkins are in fact Jenkins's doing, or whether maybe they're the
> result of a misconfiguration that you'd have the power to fix yourselves.
> Again, I'm not lobbying against considering Travis CI (I've got no
> experience with it), just suggesting based on a very small sampling that
> maybe some of the problems being laid at Jenkins' feet might not actually
> be Jenkins's fault and might be solvable within Jenkins, so factor that
> into any discussion of the pros and cons of moving vs. staying.
>
> Tim
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Michael André Pearce <
> michael.andre.pearce@me.com> wrote:
>
> > This is great idea! I get so frustrated with these environment issues.
> +100
> >
> > Some other advantages I could see we could implement if successful.
> >
> > run a Linux build and a macOS build eg to check bits like kqueue and or
> > other os specific behaviours (aio fallback to nio)
> >
> > look to use appveyor for a windows build validation. (I’m thinking this
> > validates bat files etc and ensures not Linux specific paths being used
> in
> > code by mistake)
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 14 Feb 2018, at 03:17, Justin Bertram <jbertram@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Over the last several months I've noticed that the Jenkins-based builds
> > > used to validate GitHub pull-requests for Artemis are failing at a
> > > significant rate for illegitimate reasons (e.g. environmental issues,
> > > timing out because they're too slow, etc.) or not being run at all.
> Even
> > > as I type this there are 4 PR builds listed on
> > https://builds.apache.org/
> > > which have been waiting for hours.
> > >
> > > I'd like to solve this problem so we have relatively quick & reliable
> PR
> > > builds.  I'm vaguely familiar with Travis CI, and I know other Apache
> > > projects use it for PR builds.  I think it would be worth investigating
> > > whether or not it would solve our problem.  What do you guys think?
> Does
> > > anybody in the community have experience with Travis CI?
> > >
> > >
> > > Justin
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message