Hi Nico,
I am hopeful this will improve the developer experience quite a bit, in
particular for first time contributors. +1
Cheers,
Konstantin
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 5:04 PM Till Rohrmann wrote:
> Thanks for drafting this proposal Nico.
>
> I hope that we can improve our development processe
Thanks for drafting this proposal Nico.
I hope that we can improve our development processes and build system
stability in the long run with the move to GHA. Hence +1 for this proposal
and the timeline. The plan looks thoroughly planned.
Cheers,
Till
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 4:29 PM Chesnay Schep
We will not use Apache resources, but install self-hosted runners on our
current CI machines, similar to what we have done with Azure.
On 16/12/2021 16:07, Fabian Paul wrote:
Hi Nico,
Thanks a lot for drafting the proposal. I really like the
fully-fledged phasing model. All in all, I am +1 to
Hi Nico,
Thanks a lot for the proposal. I applaud the move to GHA and the planning
seems great. +1 from my side.
I'm assuming with the converting one CI machine, you mean that we switch
convert one of the CI machines to run the Github Selfhosted Runner?
Best regards,
Martijn
On Thu, 16 Dec 202
Hi Nico,
Thanks a lot for drafting the proposal. I really like the
fully-fledged phasing model. All in all, I am +1 to move away from
azure and can only second all the points you have mentioned.
I only want to clarify one point. So far my understanding was that the
GHA resources are managed on a
Hi all,
as several people know by now, we are planning to move from Azure CI to
Github Actions. This is motivated by (not an exhaustive list):
- Not needing to mirror the repo anymore for CI
- Improving the contributor experience, especially for new contributors
- GHA development being more active
