OK. We got some credits from Google :) so I will soon be testing out GitLabCI + GKE cluster combination and will let you know the results :)
J. On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 7:38 AM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> wrote: > From Apache Airflow side - I am going to try out GitLab CI setup for the > project and I also reached out to Google OSS team to donate a GKE > auto-scaling cluster for our workloads. If it works (highly probable), we > might be able to use even less of the free minutes from GitLab because we > will have the cluster available to run our builds on. Maybe that's also > something that other projects could look at if the 50K minutes is not > enough. > > Suggestion: maybe it would be a great idea for GitLab to treat the Apache > projects differently and have a special agreement at least for some of the > projects that cannot get regular donations from other parties easily. I > think this is more of a strategic decision for GitLab to see if this might > be in line with their strategy?. > > For now I think I have everything to try it out for Airflow project and > make POC working in this setup (while waiting for the GKE cluster > donation). Once done I am happy to share our learnings and maybe provide > some guidelines for other projects? > > J. > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 2:37 AM Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ray, >> >> Thanks for the offer of 50k minutes/project. That will definitely work >> for most projects. >> >> While we don't have precise measurements, some projects used *way* more >> than that within Travis last month: >> >> flink: 350k minutes >> arrow: 260k minutes >> cloudstack: 190k minutes >> incubator-druid: 96k >> airflow: 77k >> ... others: less than 50k >> >> I don't know what would be needed from Infra, to enable the use of Gitlab >> CI for our projects. ?? >> >> Thanks, >> Greg Stein >> Infrastructure Administrator, ASF >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 7:27 PM Raymond Paik <rp...@gitlab.com.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> Joan, >>> >>> The 50,000 minutes would be for each project (assuming individual >>> projects >>> will apply for separate GitLab licenses). >>> >>> When you reach the limit, you'll have an option to purchase additional >>> minutes. More info. available at >>> >>> https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/admin_area/settings/continuous_integration.html#what-happens-when-my-ci-minutes-quota-run-out >>> and >>> here's the relevant issue >>> <https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/3314#note_176031720>. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ray >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 2:33 PM Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> > Hi Raymond, >>> > >>> > Would this 50,000 CI minutes per month be spread across the entire ASF, >>> > or just each project? With >300 projects here, that's potentially >>> > 50,000 * 300 = 15 million minutes we're talking about. >>> > >>> > What happens when a project exceeds that amount of minutes? Busy >>> > projects that build each PR, and the build/test cycle takes let's say >>> 30 >>> > minutes * 3 configuration = ~100 minutes per PR, would consume these >>> > minutes with just 100 PRs (or incremental pushes to each PR). That's >>> not >>> > much time. >>> > >>> > -Joan >>> > >>> > On 2019-07-16 16:20, Raymond Paik wrote: >>> > > Jarek, >>> > > >>> > > You're not required to migrate your repo over to GitLab. We have >>> other >>> > > projects that keep their source code in GitHub, but are using GitLab >>> for >>> > > CI. Hope this helps... >>> > > >>> > > Thanks, >>> > > >>> > > Ray >>> > > >>> > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:51 PM Jarek Potiuk < >>> jarek.pot...@polidea.com> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> Yep we use Git indeed but we have Github repo ( >>> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow) and I believe this is pretty >>> much >>> > >> standard for all Apache projects (adding Greg as well). >>> > >> >>> > >> I don't think (or am I wrong?) the open source program directly >>> applies >>> > in >>> > >> this case because we would have to have GitLab Repo as well, but in >>> our >>> > >> case we really need GitLab CI integration with GitHub repository. >>> > >> >>> > >> Would that be possible to get this case working ? >>> > >> >>> > >> J >>> > >> >>> > >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 6:27 PM Raymond Paik >>> <rp...@gitlab.com.invalid> >>> > >> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >>> Thanks Jarek: >>> > >>> >>> > >>> We do have an open source program at GitLab ( >>> > >>> https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/) where open >>> source >>> > >>> projects get access to top tier features (either SaaS or >>> self-hosted) >>> > for >>> > >>> free including up to 50,000 CI minutes/month. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Are you currently using Git as your source code repository? >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Ray >>> > >>> >>> > >>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:49 AM Jarek Potiuk < >>> jarek.pot...@polidea.com >>> > > >>> > >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >>> > >>>> Adding Raymond Paik who is GitLab Community Manager and wants to >>> > >>> chime-in >>> > >>>> the thread! >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> J. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 1:04 AM Allen Wittenauer >>> > >>>> <a...@effectivemachines.com.invalid> wrote: >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>>> On Jul 3, 2019, at 3:15 PM, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> > >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> I was asking if any of the service platforms provided this. So >>> far, >>> > >>> it >>> > >>>>> looks like no. >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> I was playing around bit with Drone today because we >>> actually >>> > >>>>> need ARM in $DAYJOB and this convo reminded me that I needed to >>> check >>> > >>> it >>> > >>>>> out. >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> So far, I’m a little underwhelmed with the feature set. >>> (No >>> > >>>>> built-in artifacting, no junit output processing, buggy/broken >>> yaml >>> > >>>>> parser, … to be fair, they are relatively new so likely still >>> > building >>> > >>>>> these things up) BUT! They do support gitlab and acting as a >>> gitlab >>> > ci >>> > >>>>> runner. So theoretically one could do linux/x86, windows/x86, >>> mac os >>> > >>> x, and >>> > >>>>> linux/arm off of a combo of gitlab ci + drone. >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> -- >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> Jarek Potiuk >>> > >>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >>> > >>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> -- >>> > >> >>> > >> Jarek Potiuk >>> > >> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer >>> > >> >>> > >> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >>> > >> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> >> > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
