Travis is not integrated with gitlab, so it's not really relevant here. *If* travis adds gitlab integration *and* we switch our current github mirror to gitlab *then* it could be something to look at. Neither of those preconditions are currently met.
We're not using any "new" github features, just the standard github mirror that gerrit already maintains (and presumably any future change review system would as well). --scott
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Brian Gerstle bgerstle@wikimedia.org wrote:
Ah of course, my misunderstanding. (I even mentioned pushing to git in my last email).
If we wanted to keep build artifacts around "forever", we could easily do so;
How would you get artifacts of a build done inside a Travis VM?
In any case, this still involves going through GitHub. Is anyone evaluating GitLab-CI https://about.gitlab.com/gitlab-ci/? Apparently their "runner" service can run on OSX (and Windows & Linux).
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:20 PM, C. Scott Ananian cananian@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Brian Gerstle bgerstle@wikimedia.org wrote:
Lastly, it appears that Travis's build-triggering API is still in beta
http://docs.travis-ci.com/user/triggering-builds/, and there's no mention
of polling builds in this way.
I don't use this API, and it's not really suitable in any case. I just
use
the standard stable API for watching builds on a branch. Trigger is automatic with the push, which is a boring old git push, via the git CLI.
If someone were to try using this with one
or more projects (e.g. Android) and decide to move forward, would we
reach
out to Travis to ask when the current API will be marked as stable or
if
they would be willing to work with us to develop an API more suited to
our
needs?
Not sure exactly what that would be. The only oddity in the current
setup
is that I clean up the branch right after the build is complete -- but that's not an inherent property of the process. If we wanted to keep
build
artifacts around "forever", we could easily do so; I just wanted to
ensure
things were uncluttered in the github "branches" pulldown.
I'm all about doing what it takes to get the job done*, but just
wanted to be sure that were aware that this might not be the most
stable
way to use Travis.
There's nothing unusual about triggering travis builds by pushing to a branch.
The only thing that's interesting at all is that our branch names have slashes in them, and that issue was resolved a year ago: https://github.com/travis-ci/travis-api/pull/146
That property of our branch names was also optional; we used dashes
instead
of slashes as a workaround. But it does let us integrate better with
gerrit
access control mechanisms, which are built around slash-delimited branch names. --scott
-- (http://cscott.net) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- EN Wikipedia user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brian.gerstle IRC: bgerstle _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l