nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andre <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] CI / Travis / Jenkins
Date Tue, 05 Dec 2017 01:08:49 GMT
Joe & Joey,

I believe setting the maven compilation job to noisy - instead of the
current quiet setting - should help solving the issue.

Have we tried that?


On 5 Dec 2017 6:26 AM, "Joe Witt" <> wrote:

I agree this would be extremely nice to get back on track.  The
changes made last night/today to the poms do appear to mean that
parallel builds with contrib-check are working.  Perhaps that helps us
a little with travis (or not).  I have reviewed a couple PRs though
recently that did not even compile much less have clean contrib-checks
so it is really nice to have Travis being more reliable.  Does anyone
have any sense of the current reasons for issues?  When I've looked
the errors made no sense at all.

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Joey Frazee <> wrote:
> I’m sure everyone has noticed that Travis CI fails, incorrectly, more
than it succeeds, often due to timeouts and not b/c of the incorrectness of
a commit or PR.
> This has been discussed previously, but it’s carried on, and become a low
information signal about the PRs, which has two big impacts: (1) it’s
ignored by experienced contributors and reviewers, and (2) it’s confusing
or misleading to new contributors.
> So, we really need to find a solution. I can think of a few:
> 1. Continue to push on INFRA to setup Jenkins for NiFi and its
> 2. Implement some kind of quick-test profile and shell script that checks
the most important things along with the subdirectories affected by the PR,
and continue to use Travis CI.
> 3. Use some other service like Circle CI or Codeship, which probably
isn’t quite what ASF wants but it might make the CI more useful (it also
might not).
> 4. Find a sponsor to support a more premium tier of Travis CI (or equiv.)
so the build has enough resources to to succeed. This too probably isn’t
preferable but I’m sure we can find a precedent.
> I’m partial to pursuing (1) and (2) together because (1) would give us a
long term solution and (2) would have some value for local builds (no need
to run the full build) as well as making Travis CI tell us something. The
first should be pretty low effort. The second will be labor intensive I
think — to identify what counts as quick and change the poms — so it can’t
be the answer on its own unless we want to wait longer to see Travis CI
become informative.
> What do the rest of you think?
> -joey

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