Thanks for the feedback, everyone.
I realized that there was a bit of a misunderstanding around my suggestion
for the migration plan. My intention was what Yangze Guo and Xintong had in
mind:
Azure CI should be handled as the ground truth. GitHub Actions CI should be
only used in the PRs to allow
We could limit the (first) trial run to branches.
PRs wouldn't be affected (avoiding a bunch of concerns about maybe
blocking PRs and misleading people into thinking that CI is green), we'd
have a better handle on how much capacity we are consuming, but
contributors would still get the new set
Thanks for the efforts, @Matthias. +1 to start a trial on Github
Actions and migrate the CI if we can prove its computation capacity
and stability.
I share the same concern with Xintong that we do not explicitly claim
the effect of this trial on the contribution procedure. I think you
can elaborat
With regards to Alex' concerns on hardware disparity: I did a bit more
digging on that one. I added my findings in a hardware section to FLIP-396
[1]. It appears that the hardware is more or less the same between the
different hosts. Apache INFRA's runners have more disk space (1TB in
comparison to
Thanks for your feedback Alex. I responded to your comments below:
This is mentioned in the "Limitations of GitHub Actions in the past"
> section of the FLIP. Does this also apply to the Apache INFRA setup or can
> we expect contributors' runs executed there too?
Workflow runs on Flink forks (in
Thanks for your comments, Xintong. See my answers below.
> I think it would be helpful if we can at the end migrate the CI to an
> ASF-managed Github Action, as long as it provides us a similar computation
> capacity and stability.
The current test runs in my Flink fork (using the GitHub-provid
Thanks for driving this Mathhias! +1 for joining the INFRA trial.
> Apache Infra did some experimenting on self-hosted runners in
collaboration
> with Apache Airflow (see ashb/runner with releases/pr-security-options
branch)
> where they only allow certain groups of users (e.g. committers) to run
Thanks for the efforts, Matthias.
I think it would be helpful if we can at the end migrate the CI to an
ASF-managed Github Action, as long as it provides us a similar computation
capacity and stability. Given that the proposal is only to start a trial
and investigate whether the migration is feas
Ok, Thanks for the update and the explanations.
Best,
Yuxin
Matthias Pohl 于2023年11月29日周三 15:43写道：
> >
> > According to the Flip, the new tests will support arm env.
> > I believe that's good news for arm users. I have a minor
> > question here. Will it be a blocker before migrating the new
> >
>
> According to the Flip, the new tests will support arm env.
> I believe that's good news for arm users. I have a minor
> question here. Will it be a blocker before migrating the new
> tests? If not, If not, when can we expect arm environment
> support to be implemented? Thanks.
Thanks for you
Hi, Matthias,
Thanks for driving this.
+1 from my side.
According to the Flip, the new tests will support arm env.
I believe that's good news for arm users. I have a minor
question here. Will it be a blocker before migrating the new
tests? If not, If not, when can we expect arm environment
suppo
Thanks, Matthias. Big +1 from me.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:30 PM Matthias Pohl
wrote:
> Thanks for the pointer. I'm planning to join that meeting.
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:16 PM Etienne Chauchot
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > FYI there is the ASF infra roundtable soon. One of the subjects
Thanks for the pointer. I'm planning to join that meeting.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:16 PM Etienne Chauchot
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> FYI there is the ASF infra roundtable soon. One of the subjects for this
> session is GitHub Actions. It could be worth passing by:
>
> December 6th, 2023 at 1700 UTC
Hi all,
FYI there is the ASF infra roundtable soon. One of the subjects for this
session is GitHub Actions. It could be worth passing by:
December 6th, 2023 at 1700 UTC on the #Roundtablechannel on Slack.
For information about theroundtables, and about how to join,
see:https://infra.apache.o
Thanks for reviving the efforts here Matthias! +1 for the transition
to GitHub Actions.
As for ASF Infra Jenkins, it works fine. Jenkins is extremely
feature-rich. Not sure about the spare capacity though. I know that
for Apache Beam, Google donated a bunch of servers to get additional
build capac
Btw. even though we've been focusing on GitHub Actions with this FLIP, I'm
curious whether somebody has experience with Apache Infra's Jenkins
deployment. The discussion I found about Jenkins [1] is quite out-dated
(2014). I haven't worked with it myself but could imagine that there are
some featur
That's a valid point. I updated the FLIP accordingly:
> Currently, the secrets (e.g. for S3 access tokens) are maintained by
> certain PMC members with access to the corresponding configuration in the
> Azure CI project. This responsibility will be moved to Apache Infra. They
> are in charge of ha
Hi Matthias,
Thanks for the write-up and for the efforts on this. I really hope
that we can move away from Azure towards GHA for a better integration
as well (directly seeing if a PR can be merged due to CI passing for
example).
The one thing I'm missing in the FLIP is how we would setup the
secr
I realized that I mixed up FLIP IDs. FLIP-395 is already reserved [1]. I
switched to FLIP-396 [2] for the sake of consistency. 8)
[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/wjd3nbvg6nt93lb0sd52f0lzls6559tv
[2]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-396%3A+Migration+to+GitHub+Actions
On T
Hi everyone,
The Flink community discussed migrating from Azure CI to GitHub Actions
quite some time ago [1]. The efforts around that stalled due to limitations
around self-hosted runner support from Apache Infra’s side. There were some
recent developments on that topic. Apache Infra is experiment
20 matches
Mail list logo
