That's good idea.

Should be good to have mix of stable with Apache Jenkins for master
and PRs, and Travis for individual forks.

- Henry

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey!
>
> I would also like to continue using Travis but the current situation is not
> acceptable because we practically can't use Travis anymore for pull
> requests or the current master. If it cannot be resolved then I think we
> should move on.
>
> The builds service team [1] at Apache offers Jenkins [2] for continuous
> integration. I think it should be fairly simple to set up. We could still
> use Travis in our forked repositories but have a reliable CI solution for
> the master and pull requests.
>
> Max
>
> [1] https://builds.apache.org/
> [2] http://jenkins-ci.org
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Márton Balassi <balassi.mar...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I also like the travis infrastucture. Thanks for bringing this up and
>> reaching out to the travis guys.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi guys,
>> >
>> > the build queue on travis is getting very very long. It seems that it
>> takes
>> > 4 days now until commits to master are build. The nightly builds from the
>> > website and the maven snapshots are also delayed by that.
>> > Right now,  there are 33 pull request builds scheduled (
>> > https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/pull_requests), and 8 builds on
>> master:
>> > https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds.
>> >
>> > The problem is that travis accounts are per github user. In our case, the
>> > user is "apache", so all ASF projects that have travis enabled share 5
>> > concurrent builders.
>> >
>> > I would actually like to continue using Travis.
>> >
>> > The easiest option is probably asking travis if they can give the
>> "apache"
>> > user more build capacity.
>> >
>> > If thats not possible, we have to look into other options.
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm going to ask Travis if they can do anything about it.
>> >
>> > Robert
>> >
>>

Reply via email to