Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wCCkz-001lAY-1T for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 08:34:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wCCkx-005f9v-2K for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 08:34:56 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wCCkx-005f9n-1A for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 08:34:56 +0000 Received: from meesny.iki.fi ([2001:67c:2b0:1c1::201]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wCCkv-00000000ldy-0qtf for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 08:34:55 +0000 Received: from [10.0.2.15] (unknown [130.41.208.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hlinnaka) by meesny.iki.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4fvLLY5hZkzyTf; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 11:34:45 +0300 (EEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iki.fi; s=meesny; t=1776069286; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=9hv5+Zm7W4tOzbLkCqyhBDk+XxXwwciCPVulxAjzI9M=; b=E61L3aFFxtkrILXUQWFoFAgrRykhRz5WXfH+NCvUwl6DER3q87xkGWwv6R8p2cf5CSsSsX vYpfIgCinJ/RFp3MsiY+ghH/18YibLj5/bIaKdGhuchY5nSnLrLTfwKnjLn1A/btzITJSF HSah2EzG/bsRk/zKNUAV0mwuR1BhrKw= ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=iki.fi; s=meesny; cv=none; t=1776069286; b=XmAkH+Q7eQDMZOljKId6b8eivv4SUdnpOZQdZGHd6/AU/goOZGNZDBWX3xz21BUfiw9J3i G9myVnBFbNHI/URnU90QlmKYe1vGLKaWbQch6UxHrZ16Ej4/puD9H8p9m0jUQ5fh2aNsXp bNO3icYIJQhU01j+7LWTWeIHq31xcTE= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; ORIGINATING; auth=pass smtp.auth=hlinnaka smtp.mailfrom=hlinnaka@iki.fi ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iki.fi; s=meesny; t=1776069286; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=9hv5+Zm7W4tOzbLkCqyhBDk+XxXwwciCPVulxAjzI9M=; b=hHlVnonbQy5dVv/m6KXg4kniDA1hswy7dh2BV44schAlzgCdM4gQBflAbTR/bDLghsnu/R BWPWKRzbus6U3gD/tOhwNUO5XDglwVuHg9s+DE7VMpuA3IPUh9qQNCT0AouWfI3lTkohJD 7YFkKVWn9FA9KB6Rgn7drv9WPihK8MQ= Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2026 11:34:44 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Heads Up: cirrus-ci is shutting down June 1st To: Andres Freund , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org References: <3ydjipcr7kbss57nvi67noplncqhesl5eyb6wgol4ccjxynspv@yatlykpribmm> Content-Language: en-US From: Heikki Linnakangas In-Reply-To: <3ydjipcr7kbss57nvi67noplncqhesl5eyb6wgol4ccjxynspv@yatlykpribmm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk On 09/04/2026 23:55, Andres Freund wrote: > As the subject says, cirrus-ci, which cfbot uses to run CI and that one can > (for now) enable on one's own repository, is shutting down. > > https://cirruslabs.org/ burries the lede a bit, but it has further down: > "Cirrus CI will shut down effective Monday, June 1, 2026." > > I can't say I'm terribly surprised, they had been moving a lot slower in the > last few years. Darn, I liked Cirrus CI. One reason being precisely that it has been stable, i.e. moved slowly, for years :-). > I think having cfbot and CI that one could run on ones own repository, without > sending a mail to the community, has improved the development process a lot. > So clearly we're going to have to do something. I certainly could not have > done stuff like AIO without it. +1. I rely heavily on cirrus CI nowadays to validate before I push. > I'd be interested in feedback about how high folks value different aspects: > > 1) CI software can be self hosted > > E.g. to prevent at least the cfbot case from being unpredictably abandoned > again. > > > 2) CI software is open source > > E.g. out of a principled stance, or control concerns. These probably go together. I think it's important that you can self-host. Even with cirrus-ci I actually wished there was an easy way to run the jobs locally. I don't know how often I'd really do it, but especially developing and testing the ci yaml files is painful when you can't run it locally. > 3) CI runs quickly > > This matters e.g. for accepting running in containers and whether it's > crucial to be able to have our images with everything pre-installed. Pretty important. "quickly" is pretty subjective though, I'm not sure what number to put to it. Cirrus-CI has felt fast enough. > 4) CI tests as many operating systems as possible > > A lot of system just support linux, plenty support macos, some support > windows. Barely any support anything beyond that. Windows support is pretty important as it's different enough from others. Macos is definitely good to have too. For others, we have the buildfarm. > 5) CI can be enabled on one's own repositories > > Cfbot obviously allows everyone to test patches some way, but sending patch > sets to the list just to get a CI run obviously gets noisy quite fast. > > There are plenty of open source CI solutions, but clearly it's not viable > for everyone to set that up for themselves. Plenty providers do allow doing > so, but the overlap of this, open source (2), multiple platforms (4) is > small if it exists. This is important. I run the CI as part of development on my own branches all the time. If it's easy to self-host, that might cover it. > 6) There need to be free credits for running at least some CI on one's own > repository > > This makes the overlapping constraints mentioned in 5) even smaller. > > There are several platforms that do provide a decent amount of CI for a > monthly charge of < 10 USD. Not important. For running on one's own repository, it's totally reasonable that you pay for it yourself. Especially if you can self-host for free. > 7) Provide CI compute for "well known contributors" for free in their own > repositories > > An alternative to 6) - with some CI solutions - can be to add folks to some > team that allows them to use community resources (which so far have been > donated). The problem with that is that it's administratively annoying, > because one does need to be careful, or CI will be used to do > cryptocurrency mining or such within a few days. Not important. Active contributors can easily pay for what they use, or self-host. - Heikki