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...@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 <u...@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 <c...@greghogan.com> wrote:
> > > We are now showing the TravisCI build status on Flink’s GitHub page. I
> > 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
> >
>
