Maxim,
Thank your for a clarification. Follow-up questions:
1. Do we need both "pr" and "push" builds? Is not it enough to have only "pr"?
2. What do we build regularly on TC? I suppose it works similarly to
Travis "push" mode. Is it worth (and possible) to consider switching
to "pr" mode?
P.S. I
Ivan,
This is the default configuration of travis-ci. Nothing was changed by me here.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong. According to my knowledge the option
mentioned by you have the following meaning:
- check `continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr` -- travis will merge
changes to the master branch
Folks,
I've updated the checklist according to your suggestions [1].
Added.
+ Treat PR title as the final squashed commit message.
+ The description explains what and why vs. how
Removed.
- Commits have the following pattern
[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7765/files
On Mon, 4 May
Pavel,
> I think this thread is a good opportunity to discuss commit message
> guidelines.
We had a thread about it recently [1].
[1]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rde6e8258537704433286a60e1d0142485c25228a46561544d35b9704%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin
пн,
Maxim,
Thanks again for doing great things!
Out of curiosity, could you please shed a light why there are 2 travis
checks for PR [1]? I am about checks named
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr and
continuous-integration/travis-ci/push.
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin
вс, 3 мая 2020 г. в 13:08, Pa
Igniters, Maxim,
I think this thread is a good opportunity to discuss commit message
guidelines.
I suggest the following:
1. Treat PR title + description as the final squashed commit message.
PR author is responsible for writing that properly.
Committer who merges the PR is responsible for valida
Hello,
I have the following in my mind:
1. This checklist is for discussion and may be changed.
2. Commits can be squashed in the branch prior to asking a review, but
when the review is in progress a good naming may help to understand
the changes.
3. It's true that the commit message can be change
Maxim,
I have a small question about "Commits have the following pattern..". Is
it really needed cause AFAIK commits in the PR are squashed. Or am I
missing something?
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 8:33 PM Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
> Folks,
>
>
> I've created the pull request template for GitHub.
> Pleas
Folks,
I've created the pull request template for GitHub.
Please, take a look and let me know what you think [1] [2].
[1]
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7765/files#diff-195a635ad245ded9076330e31134bd80
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12937
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 20:35,
Hi Maxim,
Thank you for enabling travis ci in ignite repo. It is very helpful to see
PR build results integrated in PR request.
I will enable it in ignite-extensions repo as well.
Regards,
Saikat
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 12:14 PM Pavel Tupitsyn
wrote:
> Maxim, pull request template is a great
Maxim, pull request template is a great idea.
We can put a checklist there along with the links to the guidelines,
something like this:
[ ] Coding Guidelines are followed
[ ] TeamCity build passes
[ ] JIRA ticked is in Patch Available state, review has been requested in
comments
[ ] Something else
Pavel,
Sorry for the incomplete message.
2. I mentioned it too. Hopefully, builds > 4 hrs would not be too often.
The reason - there are limited job-workers shared between all the
Apache projects. I found some details here [1] [2].
[1]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/af52e2a3e865c01596d46
Pavel,
1. Agree here. What if we create a default template pull request
description with all the links required by our development process?
[1] It's will be friendly for contributors to have everything they
need in the PR.
2.
[1]
https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/cre
Maxim,
Good news, thank you.
However, I see two issues with this:
1. False sense of a ready-to-merge PR
Now that we have a reassuring green checkmark on the PR, contributors might
think that build passes and all is well.
But this is not true - we only check that the code compiles. TeamCity run
i
Igniters,
The Travis-ci build configured for running on the Apache Ignite PRs
and the master branch [1] [2].
Build run under:
openjdk8
openjdk11
Example of PR:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7695
[1] https://travis-ci.org/github/apache/ignite
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/I
Petr,
I think it's doable. It has custom `install-jdk` script, so even the
latest JDKs can be used.
[1] https://github.com/sormuras/bach#install-jdksh
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 18:31, Petr Ivanov wrote:
>
> We do not need JDK10 — it is out of support already.
> Instead, how about adding JDK14?
>
>
We do not need JDK10 — it is out of support already.
Instead, how about adding JDK14?
> On 14 Apr 2020, at 17:30, Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> I forgot to mention one more important thing of this tool. We can
> configure build and checks simultaneously for several JDK versions.
>
> jd
Folks,
I forgot to mention one more important thing of this tool. We can
configure build and checks simultaneously for several JDK versions.
jdk:
- oraclejdk8
- openjdk10
- openjdk11
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 17:17, Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> +1 Travis-ci
>
> I see no disadvantage
Folks,
+1 Travis-ci
I see no disadvantages of having multiple CI tools due to:
- it's free for open-source and can be disabled at any time without
any consequences;
- it will free TeamCity from running builds on each PR and TC can
focus on tests execution;
- we can perform more sophisticated chec
> On another hand, it seems weird to have both TeamCity and Travis
And don’t forget MTCGA bot!
> 14 апр. 2020 г., в 10:23, Pavel Tupitsyn написал(а):
>
> We should have PR checks for sure.
>
> On one hand, I agree with Denis:
> - Travis is very easy to set up in GitHub
> - Config file (travis
We should have PR checks for sure.
On one hand, I agree with Denis:
- Travis is very easy to set up in GitHub
- Config file (travis.yml) is stored in git, which is great
On another hand, it seems weird to have both TeamCity and Travis.
Thoughts?
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 10:16 AM Denis Garus wrot
Hello!
I have seen projects with Travis-ci they look cool.
I think Travis-ci is a good solution.
вт, 14 апр. 2020 г. в 10:00, Andrey Mashenkov :
> Maxim,
>
> Good idea. I'd add a license check as well.
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:14 AM Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> > It's reall
Maxim,
Good idea. I'd add a license check as well.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:14 AM Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> It's really `must-have` feature for me to enable Apache Ignite
> pull-request status checks on GitHub. Currently we don't have any of
> them. The most obvious check for each
It's a good idea and many of mature projects have the same
вт, 14 апр. 2020 г., 2:14 Maxim Muzafarov :
> Igniters,
>
> It's really `must-have` feature for me to enable Apache Ignite
> pull-request status checks on GitHub. Currently we don't have any of
> them. The most obvious check for each pull
24 matches
Mail list logo
