Thank you for the feedback so far. Responses to the items Chesnay raised:
- by virtue of maintaining the past 2 releases we will have to maintain any > Travis infrastructure as long as 1.10 is supported, i.e., until 1.12 > Okay. I wasn't sure about the exact policy there. > - the azure setup doesn't appear to be equivalent yet since the java e2e > profile isn't setting the hadoop switch (-Pe2e-hadoop), as a result of > which SQLClientKafkaITCase isn't run > I filed a ticket to address this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-16778 > - the nightly scripts still seems to be using a maven version other than > 3.2.5; from today on master: > 2020-03-25T05:31:52.7412964Z [INFO] --------< > org.apache.flink:flink-end-to-end-tests-common-kafka >-------- > 2020-03-25T05:31:52.7413854Z [INFO] Building > flink-end-to-end-tests-common-kafka 1.11-SNAPSHOT [39/46] > 2020-03-25T05:31:52.7414689Z [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar > ]--------------------------------- > 2020-03-25T05:31:52.7518360Z [INFO] > 2020-03-25T05:31:52.7519770Z [INFO] --- maven-checkstyle-plugin:2.17:check > (validate) @ flink-end-to-end-tests-common-kafka --- > I'm planning to address this as part of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-16411, where I work on centralizing all mvn invocations. > - there is no real benefit in retiring the travis support in CiBot; the > important part is whether Travis is run or not for pull requests. > From what I can tell though azure seems to be working fine for pull > requests, so +1 to at least disable the travis PR runs. So we disable Travis for https://github.com/flink-ci/flink ? I will do it once there are no new concerns and above tickets are resolved. What about disabling travis for master pushes? (e.g. removing the .travis.yml file from master)? @Dian: Thanks a lot for your feedback. - The report of Azure is still not viewable[1] (I noticed that Hequn has > also reported this issue in another thread). This is very useful > information. You are referring to the emails send to builds@f.a.o right? I have reported this both as a bug [1] and a feature request [2] to Azure. But I don't believe they will resolve this issue anytime soon. Azure has an notifications API that we could use to build a service that sends emails to that list, but I feel that this is really a waste of time. The URL in the link even contains the ID of the build. We would just need to extract this ID and generate the appropriate URL. I will try to directly reach the product management of AZP, maybe I can get some attention from there. [1] https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/content/problem/957778/third-parties-are-unable-to-access-notification-li.html?childToView=960403#comment-960403 [2] https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/content/idea/960472/third-parties-are-unable-to-access-notification-li-1.html On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 10:34 AM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> wrote: > It was left out since it adds significant additional complexity and the > value is dubious at best for PRs that aren't merged shortly after the > build has finished. > > On 25/03/2020 10:28, Dian Fu wrote: > > Thanks for the information. I'm sorry that I'm not aware of this before > and I have checked the build log of travis and confirmed that this is true. > > > > @Chesnay Are there any specific reasons for this and is it possible to > add this back for Azure Pipelines? > > > > Thanks, > > Dian > > > >> 在 2020年3月25日，下午4:43，Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> 写道： > >> > >> @Dian we haven't been rebasing PR's against master for months, ever > since we switched to CiBot. > >> > >> On 25/03/2020 09:29, Dian Fu wrote: > >>> Hi Robert, > >>> > >>> Thanks a lot for your great work! > >>> > >>> Overall I'm +1 to switch to Azure as the primary CI tool if it's > stable enough as I think there is no need to run both the travis and Azure > for one single PR. > >>> > >>> However, there are still some improvements need to do and it would be > great if these issues could be addressed before fully switch to Azure: > >>> - The report of Azure is still not viewable[1] (I noticed that Hequn > has also reported this issue in another thread). This is very useful > information. > >>> - For PR test of Azure pipeline, it seems that it will not rebase the > master code before running the tests. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Dian > >>> > >>> [1] > https://dev.azure.com/rmetzger/web/build.aspx?pcguid=03e2a4fd-f647-46c5-a324-527d2c2984ce&builduri=vstfs%3a%2f%2f%2fBuild%2fBuild%2f6593&tracking_data=eyJTb3VyY2UiOiJFbWFpbCIsIlR5cGUiOiJOb3RpZmljYXRpb24iLCJTSUQiOiIzMzk0MzciLCJTVHlwZSI6IkdSUCIsIlJlY2lwIjoxLCJfeGNpIjp7Ik5JRCI6NDAyODQ3NzksIk1SZWNpcCI6Im0wPTEgIiwiQWN0IjoiMTNjNDc3YWMtZTBjYS00MjJkLTkxOTItZWI0NzFkZmUzMWY0In0sIkVsZW1lbnQiOiJoZXJvL2N0YSJ9 > < > https://dev.azure.com/rmetzger/web/build.aspx?pcguid=03e2a4fd-f647-46c5-a324-527d2c2984ce&builduri=vstfs%3a%2f%2f%2fBuild%2fBuild%2f6593&tracking_data=eyJTb3VyY2UiOiJFbWFpbCIsIlR5cGUiOiJOb3RpZmljYXRpb24iLCJTSUQiOiIzMzk0MzciLCJTVHlwZSI6IkdSUCIsIlJlY2lwIjoxLCJfeGNpIjp7Ik5JRCI6NDAyODQ3NzksIk1SZWNpcCI6Im0wPTEgIiwiQWN0IjoiMTNjNDc3YWMtZTBjYS00MjJkLTkxOTItZWI0NzFkZmUzMWY0In0sIkVsZW1lbnQiOiJoZXJvL2N0YSJ9> > < > https://dev.azure.com/rmetzger/web/build.aspx?pcguid=03e2a4fd-f647-46c5-a324-527d2c2984ce&builduri=vstfs:///Build/Build/6593&tracking_data=eyJTb3VyY2UiOiJFbWFpbCIsIlR5cGUiOiJOb3RpZmljYXRpb24iLCJTSUQiOiIzMzk0MzciLCJTVHlwZSI6IkdSUCIsIlJlY2lwIjoxLCJfeGNpIjp7Ik5JRCI6NDAyODQ3NzksIk1SZWNpcCI6Im0wPTEgIiwiQWN0IjoiMTNjNDc3YWMtZTBjYS00MjJkLTkxOTItZWI0NzFkZmUzMWY0In0sIkVsZW1lbnQiOiJoZXJvL2N0YSJ9 > < > https://dev.azure.com/rmetzger/web/build.aspx?pcguid=03e2a4fd-f647-46c5-a324-527d2c2984ce&builduri=vstfs:///Build/Build/6593&tracking_data=eyJTb3VyY2UiOiJFbWFpbCIsIlR5cGUiOiJOb3RpZmljYXRpb24iLCJTSUQiOiIzMzk0MzciLCJTVHlwZSI6IkdSUCIsIlJlY2lwIjoxLCJfeGNpIjp7Ik5JRCI6NDAyODQ3NzksIk1SZWNpcCI6Im0wPTEgIiwiQWN0IjoiMTNjNDc3YWMtZTBjYS00MjJkLTkxOTItZWI0NzFkZmUzMWY0In0sIkVsZW1lbnQiOiJoZXJvL2N0YSJ9 > >> > >>>> 在 2020年3月25日，下午3:33，Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> 写道： > >>>> > >>>> Some thoughts: > >>>> - by virtue of maintaining the past 2 releases we will have to > maintain any Travis infrastructure as long as 1.10 is supported, i.e., > until 1.12 > >>>> - the azure setup doesn't appear to be equivalent yet since the java > e2e profile isn't setting the hadoop switch (-Pe2e-hadoop), as a result of > which SQLClientKafkaITCase isn't run > >>>> - the nightly scripts still seems to be using a maven version other > than 3.2.5; from today on master: > >>>> > >>>> 2020-03-25T05:31:52.7412964Z [INFO] --------< > org.apache.flink:flink-end-to-end-tests-common-kafka >-------- > >>>> 2020-03-25T05:31:52.7413854Z [INFO] Building > flink-end-to-end-tests-common-kafka 1.11-SNAPSHOT [39/46] > >>>> 2020-03-25T05:31:52.7414689Z [INFO] --------------------------------[ > jar ]--------------------------------- > >>>> 2020-03-25T05:31:52.7518360Z [INFO] > >>>> 2020-03-25T05:31:52.7519770Z [INFO] --- > maven-checkstyle-plugin:2.17:check (validate) @ > flink-end-to-end-tests-common-kafka --- > >>>> > >>>> - there is no real benefit in retiring the travis support in CiBot; > the important part is whether Travis is run or not for pull requests. > >>>> > >>>> From what I can tell though azure seems to be working fine for pull > requests, so +1 to at least disable the travis PR runs. > >>>> > >>>> On 23/03/2020 14:48, Robert Metzger wrote: > >>>>> Hey devs, > >>>>> > >>>>> I would like to discuss whether it makes sense to fully switch to > Azure > >>>>> Pipelines and phase out our Travis integration. > >>>>> More information on our Azure integration can be found here: > >>>>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/2020/03/22/Migrating+Flink%27s+CI+Infrastructure+from+Travis+CI+to+Azure+Pipelines > >>>>> > >>>>> Travis will stay for the release-1.10 and older branches, as I have > set up > >>>>> Azure only for the master branch. > >>>>> > >>>>> Proposal: > >>>>> - We keep the flinkbot infrastructure supporting both Travis and > Azure > >>>>> around, while we are still receive pull requests and pushes for the > >>>>> "master" and "release-1.10" branches. > >>>>> - We remove the travis-specific files from "master", so that builds > are not > >>>>> triggered anymore > >>>>> - once we receive no more builds at Travis (because 1.11 has been > >>>>> released), we remove the remaining travis-related infrastructure > >>>>> > >>>>> What do you think? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> Robert > > > > >
