flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ufuk Celebi <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] TravisCI status on GitHub Page
Date Tue, 21 Mar 2017 14:02:36 GMT
The tag says "errored" in case of the timeout.

But I don't think it's a worthwhile discussion to have, so I just
reverted the commit.

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org> wrote:
> Copying my answer from JIRA:
> Many builds are marked as "failed" these days simply due to exceeding the
> 50 minute limit in one profile.
> The status kind of makes the project look bad without a reason.
> We have quasi never a broken master, and currently not even flaky tests :-)
> For a code base of that size, that's a remarkable job by the community.
> Would be a pity if this is reflected differently to the works for reasons
> of timeouts and build infrastructure issues.
> I am +1 for removing the tag.
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:51 AM, Bowen Li <bowen.li@offerupnow.com> wrote:
>> I would argue for benefits of having build status.
>> Instead of letting people go through all docs and wikis to find how Flink
>> build system works, it guides people directly to where builds actually
>> happen and ramps up new contributors faster. When my local tests fail
>> during development, the homepage is the single place I would like to visit
>> and find out if my local errors are from master branch.
>> It also reminds everyone in the community that what the state of our
>> project is - failing? check out errors directly and fix them, also remind
>> yourself be cautious when developing code; passing? that's great, and
>> everyone in this project has been doing an excellent job!
>> I don't like to pretend the project is healthy and stable all the time
>> because it is not and will never be. Removing a way that problems surface
>> is not a way to make it better. I feel it actually gives people a positive
>> impression that Flink is an up-to-date project, because older projects
>> don't usually have it according to my observation.
>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Ufuk Celebi <uce@apache.org> wrote:
>> > I merged the PR and therefore obviously think it's fine. ;-) Didn't
>> > see Robert's comment in the issue though ("We once had the travis
>> > build status badge in our readme, but decided to remove it, because it
>> > often shows "Build failed" due to travis issues etc.
>> > This gives people the impression that our builds are very unstable").
>> >
>> > It's actually not just an impression, but actually true that the
>> > builds are unstable (even if recently it's "mostly" caused by
>> > timeouts). Since we are actively working on improving this situation
>> > with the repository split, I think it does not hurt having it there.
>> > If others disagree, we can revert it.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Greg Hogan <code@greghogan.com> wrote:
>> > > We are now showing the TravisCI build status on Flink’s GitHub page.
>> > think Robert’s comment in Jira may have gone unnoticed when the PR was
>> > committed.
>> > >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6122 <
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6122>
>> > >
>> > > If not yet seeing the benefit even if builds were typically passing.
>> > >
>> > > Greg
>> >

View raw message