commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benedikt Ritter <>
Subject Re: [all/travis-ci] Regarding potential Travis-CI solutions
Date Fri, 04 Aug 2017 18:14:10 GMT
I agree with Pascal. It's better to use Travis build in stuff. When IBM Jdk
really become available, that would be quite nice, because that tends to
cause failures. Regarding EA builds, I think it's good enough to test
releases against them. Since EA builds may have regressions, this could
lead to unstable builds. That's why I wouldn't make them part of my CI.


Pascal Schumacher <> schrieb am Fr. 4. Aug. 2017 um

> Hello everybody,
> let me add some detail to what I mean by hard to maintain.
> The scripts contains links to specific jdk versions:
> These have to be updated regularly, because what good is it to test
> against yesterdays EA versions? (They actually are already out of date :().
> Commons-text just uses a very stable and small parts of the jdk so I do
> not think it is very likely that something will break on a different
> variant.
> There is also a pull request to add the ibm jdk to travis:
> and a travis
> employee promised to take a look soon. So maybe travis will support the
> ibm jdk out of the box soon.
> Cheers,
> Pascal
> Am 03.08.2017 um 23:32 schrieb Rob Tompkins:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > We have an open pull request from Amey (
> <
>>) proposing a fairly
> complicated but quite nice travis-ci build solution (taken from the jacoco
> project) that accommodates building on JDK7, JDK8, JDK8-ea, EclipseJava,
> JDK9-ea, as well as IBMJava-8. To accommodate building on all of these
> different versions of Java, we do however need to make the travis-ci build
> a good deal more complex.
> >
> > As the two reviewers on the pull request, Pascal and myself, have mildly
> differing opinions on the complexity-value trade off here, with Pascal’s
> opinion being: "…[T]his is overkill. I don't think commons-text needs to be
> tested against the eclipse java compiler and early access versions of java
> 8 and 9. The script looks difficult to debug and maintain.” And my
> perspective is that this could be a test piece for using this elsewhere in
> commons.
> >
> > To me, the argument for simplicity is always quite compelling, to the
> point that I’m mostly willing to let go of using the jacoco travis-ci
> pattern. But I figured I would, before making any decisions, see what the
> community thinks generally about this possible travis-ci build script.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -Rob

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message