Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Migrate to sponsored Travis account

Chesnay Schepler Mon, 08 Jul 2019 00:49:23 -0700

Yes we can do that; for the time being you can add an empty commit tore-trigger the CI.


On 08/07/2019 03:49, Congxian Qiu wrote:

As we used flink bot to trigger the CI test, could we add a command for
flink bot to retrigger the CI(sometimes we may encounter some flaky tests)

Best,
Congxian


Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> 于2019年7月8日周一 上午5:01写道：

The vote has passed unanimously in favor of migrating to a separate
Travis account.

I will now set things up such that no PullRequest is no longer run on
the ASF servers.
This is a major setup in reducing our usage of ASF resources.
For the time being we'll use free Travis plan for flink-ci (i.e. 5
workers, which is the same the ASF gives us). Over the course of the
next week we'll setup the Ververica subscription to increase this limit.

  From now now, a bot will mirror all new and updated PullRequests to a
mirror repository (https://github.com/flink-ci/flink-ci) and write an
update into the PR once the build is complete.
I have ran the bots for the past 3 days in parallel to our existing
Travis and it was working without major issues.

The biggest change that contributors will see is that there's no longer
a icon next to each commit. We may revisit this in the future.

I'll setup a repo with the source of the bot later.

On 04/07/2019 10:46, Chesnay Schepler wrote:

I've raised a JIRA
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18703>with INFRA to
inquire whether it would be possible to switch to a different Travis
account, and if so what steps would need to be taken.
We need a proper confirmation from INFRA since we are not in full
control of the flink repository (for example, we cannot access the
settings page).

If this is indeed possible, Ververica is willing sponsor a Travis
account for the Flink project.
This would provide us with more than enough resources than we need.

Since this makes the project more reliant on resources provided by
external companies I would like to vote on this.

Please vote on this proposal, as follows:
[ ] +1, Approve the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis account,
provided that INFRA approves
[ ] -1, Do not approach the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis
account

The vote will be open for at least 24h, and until we have confirmation
from INFRA. The voting period may be shorter than the usual 3 days
since our current is effectively not working.

On 04/07/2019 06:51, Bowen Li wrote:

Re: > Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to
an entirely different CI service?

I reached out to Wes and Krisztián from Apache Arrow PMC. They are
currently moving away from ASF's Travis to their own in-house metal
machines at [1] with custom CI application at [2]. They've seen
significant improvement w.r.t both much higher performance and
basically no resource waiting time, "night-and-day" difference
quoting Wes.

Re: > If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our
project, then this might be something we can do fairly quickly?

I believe so, according to [3] and [4]


[1] https://ci.ursalabs.org/ <https://ci.ursalabs.org/#/>
[2] https://github.com/ursa-labs/ursabot
[3]

https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration

[4]

https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-on-travis-ci-com



On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:01 AM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org
<mailto:ches...@apache.org>> wrote:

     Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to an
     entirely different CI service?

     If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our
     project, then
     this might be something we can do fairly quickly?

     On 03/07/2019 05:55, Bowen Li wrote:
     > I responded in the INFRA ticket [1] that I believe they are
     using a wrong
     > metric against Flink and the total build time is a completely
     different
     > thing than guaranteed build capacity.
     >
     > My response:
     >
     > "As mentioned above, since I started to pay attention to Flink's
     build
     > queue a few tens of days ago, I'm in Seattle and I saw no build
     was kicking
     > off in PST daytime in weekdays for Flink. Our teammates in China
     and Europe
     > have also reported similar observations. So we need to evaluate
     how the
     > large total build time came from - if 1) your number and 2) our
     > observations from three locations that cover pretty much a full
     day, are
     > all true, I **guess** one reason can be that - highly likely the
     extra
     > build time came from weekends when other Apache projects may be
     idle and
     > Flink just drains hard its congested queue.
     >
     > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack of
     resources
     > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable,
dedicated**
     > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even if
     no build is
     > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head in
PST
     > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an absurd
     amount of
     > waiting time.
     >
     > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system and
     grants
     > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for
     Flink, that'll
     > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now.
     >
     > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack of
     resources
     > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable,
dedicated**
     > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even if
     no build is
     > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head in
PST
     > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an absurd
     amount of
     > waiting time.
     >
     >
     > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system and
     grants
     > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for
     Flink, that'll
     > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now.
     >
     > I feel what's missing in the ASF INFRA's Travis resource pool is
     some level
     > of build capacity SLAs and certainty"
     >
     >
     > Again, I believe there are differences in nature of these two
     problems,
     > long build time v.s. lack of dedicated build resource. That's
     saying,
     > shortening build time may relieve the situation, and may not.
     I'm sightly
     > negative on disabling IT cases for PRs, due to the downside is
     that we are
     > at risk of any potential bugs in PR that UTs doesn't catch, and
     may cost a
     > lot more to fix and if it slows others down or even block
     others, but am
     > open to others opinions on it.
     >
     > AFAICT from INFRA ticket[1], donating to ASF INFRA won't be
     feasible to
     > solve our problem since INFRA's pool is fully shared and they
     have no
     > control and finer insights over resource allocation to a
     specific Apache
     > project. As mentioned in [1], Apache Arrow is moving away from
     ASF INFRA
     > Travis pool (they are actually surprised Flink hasn't plan to do
     so). I
     > know that Spark is on its own build infra. If we all agree that
     funding our
     > own build infra, I'd be glad to help investigate any potential
     options
     > after releasing 1.9 since I'm super busy with 1.9 now.
     >
     > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533
     >
     >
     >
     > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:46 AM Chesnay Schepler
     <ches...@apache.org <mailto:ches...@apache.org>> wrote:
     >
     >> As a short-term stopgap, since we can assume this issue to
     become much
     >> worse in the following days/weeks, we could disable IT cases in
     PRs and
     >> only run them on master.
     >>
     >> On 02/07/2019 12:03, Chesnay Schepler wrote:
     >>> People really have to stop thinking that just because
     something works
     >>> for us it is also a good solution.
     >>> Also, please remember that our builds run for 2h from start to
     finish,
     >>> and not the 14 _minutes_ it takes for zeppelin.
     >>> We are dealing with an entirely different scale here, both in
     terms of
     >>> build times and number of builds.
     >>>
     >>> In this very thread people have been complaining about long
queue
     >>> times for their builds. Surprise, other Apache projects have
been
     >>> suffering the very same thing due to us not controlling our
build
     >>> times. While switching services (be it Jenkins, CircleCI or
     whatever)
     >>> will possibly work for us (and these options are actually
     attractive,
     >>> like CircleCI's proper support for build artifacts), it will
also
     >>> result in us likely negatively affecting other projects in
     significant
     >>> ways.
     >>>
     >>> Sure, the Jenkins setup has a good user experience for us, at
     the cost
     >>> of blocking Jenkins workers for a _lot_ of time. Right now we
     have 25
     >>> PR's in our queue; that's possibly 50h we'd consume of Jenkins
     >>> resources, and the European contributors haven't even really
     started yet.
     >>>
     >>> FYI, the latest INFRA response from INFRA-18533:
     >>>
     >>> "Our rough metrics shows that Flink used over 5800 hours of
     build time
     >>> last month. That is equal to EIGHT servers running 24/7 for
     the ENTIRE
     >>> MONTH. EIGHT. nonstop.
     >>> When we discovered this last night, we discussed it some and
     are going
     >>> to tune down Flink to allow only five executors maximum. We
cannot
     >>> allow Flink to consume so much of a Foundation shared resource."
     >>>
     >>> So yes, we either
     >>> a) have to heavily reduce our CI usage or
     >>> b) fund our own, either maintaining it ourselves or donating
     to Apache.
     >>>
     >>> On 02/07/2019 05:11, Bowen Li wrote:
     >>>> By looking at the git history of the Jenkins script, its core
     part
     >>>> was finished in March 2017 (and only two minor update in
     2017/2018),
     >>>> so it's been running for over two years now and feels like
     Zepplin
     >>>> community has been quite happy with it. @Jeff Zhang
     >>>> <mailto:zjf...@gmail.com <mailto:zjf...@gmail.com>> can you
     share your insights and user
     >>>> experience with the Jenkins+Travis approach?
     >>>>
     >>>> Things like:
     >>>>
     >>>> - has the approach completely solved the resource capacity
     problem
     >>>> for Zepplin community? is Zepplin community happy with the
     result?
     >>>> - is the whole configuration chain stable (e.g. uptime) enough?
     >>>> - how often do you need to maintain the Jenkins infra? how many
     >>>> people are usually involved in maintenance and bug-fixes?
     >>>>
     >>>> The downside of this approach seems mostly to be on the
     maintenance
     >>>> to me - maintain the script and Jenkins infra.
     >>>>
     >>>> ** Having Our Own Travis-CI.com Account **
     >>>>
     >>>> Another alternative I've been thinking of is to have our own
     >>>> travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> <http://travis-ci.com>
     account with paid dedicated
     >>>> resources. Note travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org>
     <http://travis-ci.org> is the free
     >>>> version and travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com>
     <http://travis-ci.com> is the commercial
     >>>> version. We currently use a shared resource pool managed by
     ASK INFRA
     >>>> team on travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org>
     <http://travis-ci.org>, but we have no control
     >>>> over it - we can't see how it's configured, how much
     resources are
     >>>> available, how resources are allocated among Apache projects,
     etc.
     >>>> The nice thing about having an account on travis-ci.com
     <http://travis-ci.com>
     >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> are:
     >>>>
     >>>> - relatively low cost with much better resource guarantee
     than what
     >>>> we currently have [1]: $249/month with 5 dedicated concurrency,
     >>>> $489/month with 10 concurrency
     >>>> - low maintenance work compared to using Jenkins
     >>>> - (potentially) no migration cost according to Travis's doc [2]
     >>>> (pending verification)
     >>>> - full control over the build capacity/configuration
compared to
     >>>> using ASF INFRA's pool
     >>>>
     >>>> I'd be surprised if we as such a vibrant community cannot
     find and
     >>>> fund $249*12=$2988 a year in exchange for a much better
developer
     >>>> experience and much higher productivity.
     >>>>
     >>>> [1] https://travis-ci.com/plans
     >>>> [2]
     >>>>
     >>

https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration

     >>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM Chesnay Schepler
     <ches...@apache.org <mailto:ches...@apache.org>
     >>>> <mailto:ches...@apache.org <mailto:ches...@apache.org>>>

wrote:

     >>>>
     >>>>      So yes, the Jenkins job keeps pulling the state from
     Travis until it
     >>>>      finishes.
     >>>>
     >>>>      Note sure I'm comfortable with the idea of using Jenkins
     workers
     >>>>      just to
     >>>>      idle for a several hours.
     >>>>
     >>>>      On 29/06/2019 14:56, Jeff Zhang wrote:
     >>>>      > Here's what zeppelin community did, we make a python
     script to
     >>>>      check the
     >>>>      > build status of pull request.
     >>>>      > Here's script:
     >>>>      >
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/travis_check.py
     >>>>      >
     >>>>      > And this is the script we used in Jenkins build job.
     >>>>      >
     >>>>      > if [ -f "travis_check.py" ]; then
     >>>>      >    git log -n 1
     >>>>      >    STATUS=$(curl -s $BUILD_URL | grep -e "GitHub pull
     >>>>      request.*from.*" | sed
     >>>>      > 's/.*GitHub pull request <a
     >>>>      > href=\"\(https[^"]*\).*from[^"]*.\(https[^"]*\).*/\1
     \2/g')
     >>>>      >    AUTHOR=$(echo $STATUS | sed 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g')
     >>>>      >    PR=$(echo $STATUS | awk '{print $1}' | sed
     >>>> 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g')
     >>>>      >    #COMMIT=$(git log -n 1 | grep "^Merge:" | awk
     '{print $3}')
     >>>>      >    #if [ -z $COMMIT ]; then
     >>>>      >    #  COMMIT=$(curl -s
     >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR
     >>>>      > | grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" |
     tr '\n' ' '
     >>>>      | sed
     >>>>      > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = '\n' |
     grep -v
     >>>>      "apache:" |
     >>>>      > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g')
     >>>>      >    #fi
     >>>>      >
     >>>>      >    # get commit hash from PR
     >>>>      >    COMMIT=$(curl -s
     >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR |
     >>>>      > grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | tr
     '\n' ' '
     >>>> | sed
     >>>>      > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = '\n' |
     grep -v
     >>>>      "apache:" |
     >>>>      > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g')
     >>>>      >    sleep 30 # sleep few moment to wait travis starts
     the build
     >>>>      >    RET_CODE=0
     >>>>      >    python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} ||
     RET_CODE=$?
     >>>>      >    if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # try with repository
     name when
     >>>>      travis-ci is
     >>>>      > not available in the account
     >>>>      >      RET_CODE=0
     >>>>      >      AUTHOR=$(curl -s
     >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR
     >>>>      > | grep '"full_name":' | grep -v "apache/zeppelin" | sed
     >>>>      > 's/.*[:][^"]*["]\([^/]*\).*/\1/g')
     >>>>      >    python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} ||
     RET_CODE=$?
     >>>>      >    fi
     >>>>      >
     >>>>      >    if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # fail with can't find
     build
     >>>>      information in
     >>>>      > the travis
     >>>>      >      set +x
     >>>>      >      echo
     "-----------------------------------------------------"
     >>>>      >      echo "Looks like travis-ci is not configured for
     your fork."
     >>>>      >      echo "Please setup by swich on 'zeppelin'
     repository at
     >>>>      > https://travis-ci.org/profile and travis-ci."
     >>>>      >      echo "And then make sure 'Build branch updates'
     option is
     >>>>      enabled in
     >>>>      > the settings
     https://travis-ci.org/${AUTHOR}/zeppelin/settings
<https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings>
     >>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings>."
     >>>>      >      echo ""
     >>>>      >      echo "To trigger CI after setup, you will need
     ammend your
     >>>>      last commit
     >>>>      > with"
     >>>>      >      echo "git commit --amend"
     >>>>      >      echo "git push your-remote HEAD --force"
     >>>>      >      echo ""
     >>>>      >      echo "See
     >>>>      >
     >>>>
     >>

http://zeppelin.apache.org/contribution/contributions.html#continuous-integration

     >>>>      > ."
     >>>>      >    fi
     >>>>      >
     >>>>      >    exit $RET_CODE
     >>>>      > else
     >>>>      >    set +x
     >>>>      >    echo "travis_check.py does not exists"
     >>>>      >    exit 1
     >>>>      > fi
     >>>>      >
     >>>>      > Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org
     <mailto:ches...@apache.org>
     >>>>      <mailto:ches...@apache.org <mailto:ches...@apache.org>>>
     于2019年6月29日周六 下午3:17写道：
     >>>>      >
     >>>>      >> Does this imply that a Jenkins job is active as long
     as the
     >>>>      Travis build
     >>>>      >> runs?
     >>>>      >>
     >>>>      >> On 26/06/2019 21:28, Bowen Li wrote:
     >>>>      >>> Hi,
     >>>>      >>>
     >>>>      >>> @Dawid, I think the "long test running" as I
     mentioned in the
     >>>>      first
     >>>>      >> email,
     >>>>      >>> also as you guys said, belongs to "a big effort
     which is much
     >>>>      harder to
     >>>>      >>> accomplish in a short period of time and may deserve
     its own
     >>>>      separate
     >>>>      >>> discussion". Thus I didn't include it in what we can
     do in a
     >>>>      foreseeable
     >>>>      >>> short term.
     >>>>      >>>
     >>>>      >>> Besides, I don't think that's the ultimate reason
     for lack of
     >>>>      build
     >>>>      >>> resources. Even if the build is shortened to
     something like
     >>>>      2h, the
     >>>>      >>> problems of no build machine works about 6 or more
     hours in
     >>>>      PST daytime
     >>>>      >>> that I described will still happen, because no
     machine from
     >>>>      ASF INFRA's
     >>>>      >>> pool is allocated to Flink. As I have paid close
     attention to
     >>>>      the build
     >>>>      >>> queue in the past few weekdays, it's a pretty clear
     pattern now.
     >>>>      >>>
     >>>>      >>> **The ultimate root cause** for that is - we don't
     have any
     >>>>      **dedicated**
     >>>>      >>> build resources that we can stably rely on. I'm
     actually ok to
     >>>>      wait for a
     >>>>      >>> long time if there are build requests running, it
     means at
     >>>>      least we are
     >>>>      >>> making progress. But I'm not ok with no build
     resource. A
     >>>>      better place I
     >>>>      >>> think we should aim at in short term is to always
     have at
     >>>>      least a central
     >>>>      >>> pool (can be 3 or 5) of machines dedicated to build
     Flink at
     >>>>      any time, or
     >>>>      >>> maybe use users resources.
     >>>>      >>>
     >>>>      >>> @Chesnay @Robert I synced with Jeff offline that
     Zeppelin
     >>>>      community is
     >>>>      >>> using a Jenkins job to automatically build on users'
     travis
     >>>>      account and
     >>>>      >>> link the result back to github PR. I guess the
     Jenkins job
     >>>>      would fetch
     >>>>      >>> latest upstream master and build the PR against it.
     Jeff has
     >>>> filed
     >>>>      >> tickets
     >>>>      >>> to learn and get access to the Jenkins infra. It'll
     better to
     >>>>      fully
     >>>>      >>> understand it first before judging this approach.
     >>>>      >>>
     >>>>      >>> I also heard good things about CircleCI, and ASF
     INFRA seems
     >>>>      to have a
     >>>>      >> pool
     >>>>      >>> of build capacity there too. Can be an alternative
     to consider.
     >>>>      >>>
     >>>>      >>>
     >>>>      >>>
     >>>>      >>>
     >>>>      >>>
     >>>>      >>>
     >>>>      >>>
     >>>>      >>>
     >>>>      >>>
     >>>>      >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:44 AM Dawid Wysakowicz <
     >>>>      >> dwysakow...@apache.org
     <mailto:dwysakow...@apache.org> <mailto:dwysakow...@apache.org
     <mailto:dwysakow...@apache.org>>>
     >>>>      >>> wrote:
     >>>>      >>>
     >>>>      >>>> Sorry to jump in late, but I think Bowen missed the
     most
     >>>>      important point
     >>>>      >>>> from Chesnay's previous message in the summary. The
     ultimate
     >>>>      reason for
     >>>>      >>>> all the problems is that the tests take close to 2
     hours to
     >>>>      run already.
     >>>>      >>>> I fully support this claim: "Unless people start
     caring about
     >>>>      test times
     >>>>      >>>> before adding them, this issue cannot be solved"
     >>>>      >>>>
     >>>>      >>>> This is also another reason why using user's Travis
     account
     >>>>      won't help.
     >>>>      >>>> Every few weeks we reach the user's time limit for
     a single
     >>>>      profile.
     >>>>      >>>> This makes the user's builds simply fail, until we
     either
     >>>>      properly
     >>>>      >>>> decrease the time the tests take (which I am not
     sure we ever
     >>>>      did) or
     >>>>      >>>> postpone the problem by splitting into more
     profiles. (Note
     >>>>      that the ASF
     >>>>      >>>> Travis account has higher time limits)
     >>>>      >>>>
     >>>>      >>>> Best,
     >>>>      >>>>
     >>>>      >>>> Dawid
     >>>>      >>>>
     >>>>      >>>> On 26/06/2019 09:36, Robert Metzger wrote:
     >>>>      >>>>> Do we know if using "the best" available hardware
     would
     >>>>      improve the
     >>>>      >> build
     >>>>      >>>>> times?
     >>>>      >>>>> Imagine we would run the build on machines with
     plenty of
     >>>>      main memory
     >>>>      >> to
     >>>>      >>>>> mount everything to ramdisk + the latest CPU
     architecture?
     >>>>      >>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>> Throwing hardware at the problem could help reduce
     the time
     >>>>      of an
     >>>>      >>>>> individual build, and using our own infrastructure
     would
     >>>>      remove our
     >>>>      >>>>> dependency on Apache's Travis account (with the
     obvious
     >>>>      downside of
     >>>>      >>>> having
     >>>>      >>>>> to maintain the infrastructure)
     >>>>      >>>>> We could use an open source travis alternative, to
     have a
     >>>>      similar
     >>>>      >>>>> experience and make the migration easy.
     >>>>      >>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:34 AM Chesnay Schepler
     >>>>      <ches...@apache.org <mailto:ches...@apache.org>
     <mailto:ches...@apache.org <mailto:ches...@apache.org>>>
     >>>>      >>>> wrote:
     >>>>      >>>>>>    >From what I gathered, there's no special
     sauce that the
     >>>>      Zeppelin
     >>>>      >>>>>> project uses which actually integrates a users
Travis
     >>>>      account into the
     >>>>      >>>> PR.
     >>>>      >>>>>> They just disabled Travis for PRs. And that's
     kind of it.
     >>>>      >>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>> Naturally we can do this (duh) and safe the ASF a
     fair
     >>>>      amount of
     >>>>      >>>>>> resources, but there are downsides:
     >>>>      >>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>> The discoverability of the Travis check takes a
     nose-dive.
     >>>>      Either we
     >>>>      >>>>>> require every contributor to always, an every
     commit, also
     >>>>      post a
     >>>>      >> Travis
     >>>>      >>>>>> build, or we have the reviewer sift through the
     >>>>      contributors account
     >>>>      >> to
     >>>>      >>>>>> find it.
     >>>>      >>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>> This is rather cumbersome. Additionally, it's
     also not
     >>>>      equivalent to
     >>>>      >>>>>> having a PR build.
     >>>>      >>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>> A normal branch build takes a branch as is and
     tests it. A
     >>>>      PR build
     >>>>      >>>>>> merges the branch into master, and then runs it.
     (Fun fact:
     >>>>      This is
     >>>>      >> why
     >>>>      >>>>>> a PR without merge conflicts is not being run on
     Travis.)
     >>>>      >>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>> And ultimately, everyone can already make use of
this
     >>>>      approach anyway.
     >>>>      >>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>> On 25/06/2019 08:02, Jark Wu wrote:
     >>>>      >>>>>>> Hi Jeff,
     >>>>      >>>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing the Zeppelin approach. I
     think it's a
     >>>>      good idea to
     >>>>      >>>>>>> leverage user's travis account.
     >>>>      >>>>>>> In this way, we can have almost unlimited
     concurrent build
     >>>>      jobs and
     >>>>      >>>>>>> developers can restart build by themselves
     (currently only
     >>>>      committers
     >>>>      >>>>>>> can restart PR's build).
     >>>>      >>>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>> But I'm still not very clear how to integrate
user's
     >>>>      travis build
     >>>>      >> into
     >>>>      >>>>>>> the Flink pull request's build automatically.
     Can you
     >>>>      explain more in
     >>>>      >>>>>>> detail?
     >>>>      >>>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>> Another question: does travis only build
     branches for user
     >>>>      account?
     >>>>      >>>>>>> My concern is that builds for PRs will rebase
user's
     >>>>      commits against
     >>>>      >>>>>>> current master branch.
     >>>>      >>>>>>> This will help us to find problems before
     merge.  Builds
     >>>>      for branches
     >>>>      >>>>>>> will lose the impact of new commits in master.
     >>>>      >>>>>>> How does Zeppelin solve this problem?
     >>>>      >>>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>> Thanks again for sharing the idea.
     >>>>      >>>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>> Regards,
     >>>>      >>>>>>> Jark
     >>>>      >>>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:01, Jeff Zhang
     <zjf...@gmail.com <mailto:zjf...@gmail.com>
     >>>>      <mailto:zjf...@gmail.com <mailto:zjf...@gmail.com>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>> <mailto:zjf...@gmail.com
     <mailto:zjf...@gmail.com> <mailto:zjf...@gmail.com
     <mailto:zjf...@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
     >>>>      >>>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>       Hi Folks,
     >>>>      >>>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  Zeppelin meet this kind of issue before, we solve
     >>>> it by
     >>>>      >> delegating
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  each
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  one's PR build to his travis account
     (Everyone can
     >>>>      have 5 free
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  slot for
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  travis build).
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  Apache account travis build is only triggered
when
     >>>>      PR is merged.
     >>>>      >>>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  Kurt Young <ykt...@gmail.com
     <mailto:ykt...@gmail.com>
     >>>>      <mailto:ykt...@gmail.com <mailto:ykt...@gmail.com>>
     <mailto:ykt...@gmail.com <mailto:ykt...@gmail.com>
     >>>>      <mailto:ykt...@gmail.com <mailto:ykt...@gmail.com>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  于2019年6月25日周二 上午10:16写道：
     >>>>      >>>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > (Forgot to cc George)
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > Best,
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > Kurt
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kurt Young
     >>>>      <ykt...@gmail.com <mailto:ykt...@gmail.com>
     <mailto:ykt...@gmail.com <mailto:ykt...@gmail.com>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>> <mailto:ykt...@gmail.com
     <mailto:ykt...@gmail.com> <mailto:ykt...@gmail.com
     <mailto:ykt...@gmail.com>>>>
     >>>>      wrote:
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > > Hi Bowen,
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > > Thanks for bringing this up. We
     actually have
     >>>>      discussed
     >>>>      >> about
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  this, and I
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > > think Till and George have
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > > already spend sometime investigating
     it. I have
     >>>>      cced both of
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  them, and
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > > maybe they can share
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > > their findings.
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > > Best,
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > > Kurt
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:08 AM Jark Wu
     >>>>      <imj...@gmail.com <mailto:imj...@gmail.com>
     <mailto:imj...@gmail.com <mailto:imj...@gmail.com>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>> <mailto:imj...@gmail.com
     <mailto:imj...@gmail.com> <mailto:imj...@gmail.com
     <mailto:imj...@gmail.com>>>>
     >>>>      wrote:
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> Hi Bowen,
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> Thanks for bringing this. We also
     suffered from
     >>>>      the long
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  build time.
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> I agree that we should focus on
     solving build
     >>>>      capacity
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  problem in the
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> thread.
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> My observation is there is only one
     build is
     >>>>      running, all
     >>>>      >> the
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  others
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> (other
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> PRs, master) are pending.
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> The pricing plan[1] of travis shows
     it can
     >>>> support
     >>>>      >> concurrent
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  build
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > jobs.
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> But I don't know which plan we are
     using, might
     >>>>      be the free
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  plan for
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > open
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> source.
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> I cc-ed Chesnay who may have some
     experience on
     >>>>      Travis.
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> Regards,
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> Jark
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> [1]: https://travis-ci.com/plans
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 08:11, Bowen Li <
     >>>>      >> bowenl...@gmail.com <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com>
     <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>> <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com
     <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com>
     >>>>      <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com
     <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > Hi Steven,
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > I think you may not read what I
     wrote. The
     >>>>      discussion is
     >>>>      >>>> about
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > "unstable
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > build **capacity**", in another word
     >>>>      "unstable / lack of
     >>>>      >>>> build
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> resources",
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > not "unstable build".
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:40 PM
     Steven Wu
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  <stevenz...@gmail.com
     <mailto:stevenz...@gmail.com> <mailto:stevenz...@gmail.com
     <mailto:stevenz...@gmail.com>>
     >>>>      <mailto:stevenz...@gmail.com
     <mailto:stevenz...@gmail.com> <mailto:stevenz...@gmail.com
     <mailto:stevenz...@gmail.com>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > wrote:
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > long and sometimes unstable build is
     >>>>      definitely a pain
     >>>>      >>>>>> point.
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > I suspect the build failure here in
     >>>>      >> flink-connector-kafka
     >>>>      >>>>>>>       is not
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> related
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > to
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > my change. but there is no easy
     re-run the
     >>>>      build on
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  travis UI.
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > Google
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > search showed a trick of
     close-and-open the
     >>>>      PR will
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  trigger rebuild.
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> but
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > that could add noises to the PR
     activities.
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > >
     >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/545555519
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > travis-ci for my personal repo
     often failed
     >>>>      with
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  exceeding time
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > limit
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > after
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > 4+ hours.
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > The job exceeded the maximum time
     limit for
     >>>>      jobs, and
     >>>>      >> has
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  been
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > terminated.
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:15 PM
     Bowen Li
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  <bowenl...@gmail.com
     <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com> <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com
     <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com>>
     >>>>      <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com>
     <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > wrote:
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > >
     >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/549681530
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  This build
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > request
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > has
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > been sitting at **HEAD of the
     queue**
     >>>>      since I first
     >>>>      >> saw
     >>>>      >>>>>>>       it at PST
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > 10:30am
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > (not sure how long it's been
     there before
     >>>>      10:30am).
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  It's PST
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > 4:12pm
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> now
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > and
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > it hasn't started yet.
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:48 PM
     Bowen Li
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  <bowenl...@gmail.com
     <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com> <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com
     <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com>>
     >>>>      <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com>
     <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com <mailto:bowenl...@gmail.com>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> wrote:
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > Hi devs,
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > I've been experiencing the pain
     >>>>      resulting from lack
     >>>>      >>>>>>>       of stable
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> build
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > capacity on Travis for Flink
     PRs [1].
     >>>>      >> Specifically, I
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  noticed
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> often
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > that
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > no
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > build in the queue is making any
     >>>>      progress for
     >>>>      >> hours,
     >>>>      >>>> and
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > suddenly
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> 5
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > or
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > 6
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > builds kick off all together
     after the
     >>>>      long pause.
     >>>>      >>>>>>>       I'm at PST
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > (UTC-08)
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > time
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > zone, and I've seen pause can
     be as
     >>>>      long as 6 hours
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  from PST 9am
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> to
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > 3pm
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > (let alone the time needed to
     drain the
     >>>>      queue
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  afterwards).
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > I think this has greatly
     impacted our
     >>>>      productivity.
     >>>>      >>>> I've
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> experienced
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > that
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > PRs submitted in the early
     morning of
     >>>>      PST time zone
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  won't finish
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > their
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > build until late night of the
     same day.
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > So my questions are:
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > - Has anyone else experienced
     the same
     >>>>      problem or
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  have similar
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > observation
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > on TravisCI? (I suspect it
     has things
     >>>>      to do with
     >>>>      >> time
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  zone)
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > - What pricing plan of
     TravisCI is
     >>>>      Flink currently
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  using? Is it
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> the
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > free
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > plan for open source
     projects? What
     >>>> are the
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  guaranteed build
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> capacity
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > of
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > the current plan?
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > - If the current pricing plan
     (either
     >>>>      free or paid)
     >>>>      >>>>>> can't
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > provide
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > stable
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > build capacity, can we
     upgrade to a
     >>>>      higher priced
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  plan with
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > larger
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > and
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > more
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > stable build capacity?
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > BTW, another factor that
     contribute to
     >>>> the
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  productivity problem
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > is
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > that
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > our build is slow - we run
     full build
     >>>>      for every PR
     >>>>      >>>> and a
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> successful
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > full
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > build takes ~5h. We
     definitely have
     >>>>      more options to
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  solve it,
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > for
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > instance,
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > modularize the build graphs
     and reuse
     >>>>      artifacts
     >>>>      >> from
     >>>>      >>>> the
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > previous
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > build.
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > But I think that can be a big
     effort
     >>>>      which is much
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  harder to
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > accomplish
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > in
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > a short period of time and
     may deserve
     >>>>      its own
     >>>>      >>>> separate
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> discussion.
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > > [1]
     >>>>      >> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/pull_requests
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >> >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  > >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  >
     >>>>      >>>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>       --
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  Best Regards
     >>>>      >>>>>>>
     >>>>      >>>>>>>  Jeff Zhang
     >>>>      >>>>>>>
     >>>>      >>
     >>>>
     >>>
     >>

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Migrate to sponsored Travis account

Reply via email to