public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Thomas Hallgren <[email protected]>
To: Chapman Flack <[email protected]>
Cc: Kartik Ohri <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Travis and AppVeyor continuous integration [Re: feature/master/ci]
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 09:32:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAO5TtCsoYHsnxYS02APB2xmxqR0PKez6iBiGKJMtH7SKANSn6w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAO5TtCuTyvyUDkY4iNGr-zUYJe6gy9+RmmO7Dm6QiNzL2p8WLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAASLQ4PfvmgKPp+aFf_r5RsBwigc+EC5Hm2CuzwJSTDCT64i-A@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAASLQ4Px21jyb2vJYSrjF5P0RqhA-G_DDWR9QHG68r+W+AqbxQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAASLQ4NYE-TW6hjbkSOuAY2Z4NM2cYzqSQ9ahO2LAUhdP9axeQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAASLQ4Od6-0=3+4ENKh1Z-Wcu5Wir-bwUn_ccO2UCmDhoR4vtQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAASLQ4OzPwZB6GG_cXNW4WU4zpHa6wm8Q3WRWNv5pZpis+gf3w@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAASLQ4P8e9XfUh17HFhYE4eMtq5-C4dpHQAX+hCsia-UFNAjtA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAASLQ4PoMTiTZUPxTR7VS8LLo9tosAMu-89T5ikWub7VbM+r4Q@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAASLQ4N6_=u6nbi+0tD8SSCSO0oPjGLMib7n2c2u5=rSKE+MNw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAO5TtCuTyvyUDkY4iNGr-zUYJe6gy9+RmmO7Dm6QiNzL2p8WLA@mail.gmail.com>
Forgot to answer on AppVeyor.
While AppVeyor doesn't seem to have the write permission requirement, I
still think GitHub Actions is a better choice. I run CI for windows using
them on a regular basis and I haven't had any issues with it. It's also
nice to have all the CI workflow in one place, written with one syntax.
Regards,
Thomas
On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 at 09:25, Thomas Hallgren <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Chap,
>
> I'm somewhat reluctant to TravisCI due to its requirement for write
> permissions to *all* my repositories and associated data. Why would anyone
> grant an external CI service such permissions just to handle CI of *one* of
> my repositories, and why don't they offer a read-only alternative? I know
> nothing about how secure the organization behind the service is and I'm
> surprised so few react to this. I don't know, perhaps I'm over cautious and
> perhaps I've misunderstood (if so, please explain what I'm missing) but so
> far, I've chosen to not use TravisCI.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas
>
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 22:25, Chapman Flack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 08/27/20 15:32, Kartik Ohri wrote:
>> > I have opened a PR to merge the CI.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> > Should I add instructions to launch a
>> > manual build to ssh into the different build environments for the
>> purpose
>> > of debugging in the PR description as well ?
>>
>> If you're up for it, yes, that would be good information to have in one
>> place.
>>
>>
>> For Thomas, if you're watching:
>>
>> The description for pull request #289 [1] includes details on
>> administrative setup with Travis and AppVeyor in order for the
>> CI setup in the pull request to become operational.
>>
>> Would you like to do that part? Can/should I do that part?
>>
>> Earlier, you mentioned a possible preference for GitHub Actions.
>> The current proposed configuration uses Travis for testing x86_64
>> Ubuntu and Mac OS, and AppVeyor for x86_64 Windows (building with
>> MSVC and with MinGW-w64).
>>
>> I see that Travis has added some level of Windows support, so that
>> it might be possible at some future time to migrate the Windows tests
>> there and consolidate, and I see GitHub Actions also claiming support
>> for all three platforms.
>>
>> The two files .travis.yml [2] and appveyor.yml [3] are recognizably
>> small mutations of each other, suggesting what is probably the modest
>> effort of migrating either one or both to another service that comes
>> to be preferred, or even just to compare.
>>
>> I would propose to register with Travis and AppVeyor for now, and
>> merge #289 as-is, maintaining the option to migrate to another
>> service if desired in the future.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Chap
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/tada/pljava/pull/289
>> [2] https://github.com/tada/pljava/blob/943152b/.travis.yml
>> [3] https://github.com/tada/pljava/blob/943152b/appveyor.yml
>>
>>
>>
view thread (15+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Travis and AppVeyor continuous integration [Re: feature/master/ci]
In-Reply-To: <CAO5TtCsoYHsnxYS02APB2xmxqR0PKez6iBiGKJMtH7SKANSn6w@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox