arrow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Krisztián Szűcs <szucs.kriszt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Travis CI delays
Date Fri, 27 Sep 2019 15:22:35 GMT
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 5:07 PM Andy Grove <andygrove73@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Krisztian. That's very helpful. I will create a CI page on the wiki
> and add this info.
>
> Does anyone have any objections to me trying out GitHub Actions for running
> the Rust tests on PR builds? I could try this out on my own fork first.
>
I think GitHub Actions is a good idea, especially for easier build setups
like Rust
has. Go, Node as similarly straightforward, so we could decommission the
travis
counterparts hopefully speeding up the rest of the builds a bit.

>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 7:40 AM Krisztián Szűcs <szucs.krisztian@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:25 PM Andy Grove <andygrove73@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I've been poking around on the Arrow website and wiki and I can't find
> > > documentation relating to CI. Do we have any documentation on how
> things
> > > work today or what the goals are?
> >
> > I don't think so.
> >
> > > For Rust builds it isn't immediately
> > > obvious why they are building on both Travis CI and Ursabot.
> > >
> > We have another thread [1], where we discuss multiple things about
> > Buildbot (ursabot). I've enabled the buildbot builder for rust because it
> > provides much quicker feedback than travis does.
> >
> > [1]:
> >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/02f7981176b67a12618b96b7d3b13e38b8f862e14c735dcf0ae359e0@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 6:33 AM Wes McKinney <wesmckinn@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > FYI, using the kibble.dev link from INFRA-18533, it seems that this
> > > > September we're using about 15% of the ASF's total Travis CI capacity
> > > > (60 concurrent workers I think)
> > > >
> > > > https://imgur.com/a/oOrbPsj
> > > >
> > > > The highest is Apache Druid (incubating) at 18%, so we are #2.
> Suffice
> > > > to say the ASF's Travis couldn't accommodate us if we had twice as
> > > > many pull requests
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 7:26 AM Wes McKinney <wesmckinn@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been sounding the alarm bells about this for a while. We need
> to
> > > > > work to get ourselves off of Travis CI, but it is not going to be
> > > > > easy.t
> >
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:42 PM Micah Kornfield <
> > > emkornfield@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My understanding is the Travis CI queue is shared among all
> apache
> > > > > > projects, and there are few including Arrow that make heavy
use
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > resources.  Hence, a lot of time waiting for jobs to start.
 I
> > think
> > > > there
> > > > > > are some open JIRAs to finish dockerization of builds, I don't
> know
> > > the
> > > > > > current status of finding alternative CI sources though.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:24 PM Andy Grove <
> andygrove73@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I know this has been discussed in the past, and I apologize
for
> > not
> > > > paying
> > > > > > > attention at the time (and searching for arrow + travis
in
> email
> > > > isn't very
> > > > > > > effective) but why does it take so long for our Travis
CI
> builds
> > > and
> > > > are
> > > > > > > there open JIRA issues related to this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Andy.
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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