[DISCUSS] solve unstable build capacity problem on TravisCI
Locked
123
123
 
|
+1 for the migration and great thanks to Chesnay and Bowen for pushing this!
Cheers, Jark On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 09:34, Congxian Qiu <[hidden email]> wrote: > +1 for the migration. > > Best, > Congxian > > > Hequn Cheng <[hidden email]> 于2019年7月4日周四 下午9:42写道： > > > +1. > > > > And thanks a lot to Chesnay for pushing this. > > > > Best, Hequn > > > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 8:07 PM Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > > > Note that the Flinkbot approach isn't that trivial either; we can't > > > _just_ trigger builds for a branch in the apache repo, but would first > > > have to clone the branch/pr into a separate repository (that is owned > by > > > the github account that the travis account would be tied to). > > > > > > One roadblock after the next showing up... > > > > > > On 04/07/2019 11:59, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > > > > Small update with mostly bad news: > > > > > > > > INFRA doesn't know whether it is possible, and referred my to Travis > > > > support. > > > > They did point out that it could be problematic in regards to > > > > read/write permissions for the repository. > > > > > > > > From my own findings /so far/ with a test repo/organization, it does > > > > not appear possible to configure the Travis account used for a > > > > specific repository. > > > > > > > > So yeah, if we go down this route we may have to pimp the Flinkbot to > > > > trigger builds through the Travis REST API. > > > > > > > > On 04/07/2019 10:46, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > > > >> I've raised a JIRA > > > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18703>with INFRA to > > > >> inquire whether it would be possible to switch to a different Travis > > > >> account, and if so what steps would need to be taken. > > > >> We need a proper confirmation from INFRA since we are not in full > > > >> control of the flink repository (for example, we cannot access the > > > >> settings page). > > > >> > > > >> If this is indeed possible, Ververica is willing sponsor a Travis > > > >> account for the Flink project. > > > >> This would provide us with more than enough resources than we need. > > > >> > > > >> Since this makes the project more reliant on resources provided by > > > >> external companies I would like to vote on this. > > > >> > > > >> Please vote on this proposal, as follows: > > > >> [ ] +1, Approve the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis > > > >> account, provided that INFRA approves > > > >> [ ] -1, Do not approach the migration to a Ververica-sponsored > Travis > > > >> account > > > >> > > > >> The vote will be open for at least 24h, and until we have > > > >> confirmation from INFRA. The voting period may be shorter than the > > > >> usual 3 days since our current is effectively not working. > > > >> > > > >> On 04/07/2019 06:51, Bowen Li wrote: > > > >>> Re: > Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to > > > >>> an entirely different CI service? > > > >>> > > > >>> I reached out to Wes and Krisztián from Apache Arrow PMC. They are > > > >>> currently moving away from ASF's Travis to their own in-house metal > > > >>> machines at [1] with custom CI application at [2]. They've seen > > > >>> significant improvement w.r.t both much higher performance and > > > >>> basically no resource waiting time, "night-and-day" difference > > > >>> quoting Wes. > > > >>> > > > >>> Re: > If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our > > > >>> project, then this might be something we can do fairly quickly? > > > >>> > > > >>> I believe so, according to [3] and [4] > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> [1] https://ci.ursalabs.org/ <https://ci.ursalabs.org/#/> > > > >>> [2] https://github.com/ursa-labs/ursabot > > > >>> [3] > > > >>> > > > > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration > > > >>> > > > >>> [4] > > > >>> > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-on-travis-ci-com > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:01 AM Chesnay Schepler < > [hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to > an > > > >>> entirely different CI service? > > > >>> > > > >>> If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our > > > >>> project, then > > > >>> this might be something we can do fairly quickly? > > > >>> > > > >>> On 03/07/2019 05:55, Bowen Li wrote: > > > >>> > I responded in the INFRA ticket [1] that I believe they are > > > >>> using a wrong > > > >>> > metric against Flink and the total build time is a completely > > > >>> different > > > >>> > thing than guaranteed build capacity. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > My response: > > > >>> > > > > >>> > "As mentioned above, since I started to pay attention to > > Flink's > > > >>> build > > > >>> > queue a few tens of days ago, I'm in Seattle and I saw no > build > > > >>> was kicking > > > >>> > off in PST daytime in weekdays for Flink. Our teammates in > > China > > > >>> and Europe > > > >>> > have also reported similar observations. So we need to > evaluate > > > >>> how the > > > >>> > large total build time came from - if 1) your number and 2) > our > > > >>> > observations from three locations that cover pretty much a > full > > > >>> day, are > > > >>> > all true, I **guess** one reason can be that - highly likely > > the > > > >>> extra > > > >>> > build time came from weekends when other Apache projects may > be > > > >>> idle and > > > >>> > Flink just drains hard its congested queue. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack > of > > > >>> resources > > > >>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, > > > >>> dedicated** > > > >>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even > if > > > >>> no build is > > > >>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head > > > >>> in PST > > > >>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an > absurd > > > >>> amount of > > > >>> > waiting time. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system > and > > > >>> grants > > > >>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for > > > >>> Flink, that'll > > > >>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack > of > > > >>> resources > > > >>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, > > > >>> dedicated** > > > >>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even > if > > > >>> no build is > > > >>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head > > > >>> in PST > > > >>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an > absurd > > > >>> amount of > > > >>> > waiting time. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system > and > > > >>> grants > > > >>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for > > > >>> Flink, that'll > > > >>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > I feel what's missing in the ASF INFRA's Travis resource pool > > is > > > >>> some level > > > >>> > of build capacity SLAs and certainty" > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Again, I believe there are differences in nature of these two > > > >>> problems, > > > >>> > long build time v.s. lack of dedicated build resource. That's > > > >>> saying, > > > >>> > shortening build time may relieve the situation, and may not. > > > >>> I'm sightly > > > >>> > negative on disabling IT cases for PRs, due to the downside > is > > > >>> that we are > > > >>> > at risk of any potential bugs in PR that UTs doesn't catch, > and > > > >>> may cost a > > > >>> > lot more to fix and if it slows others down or even block > > > >>> others, but am > > > >>> > open to others opinions on it. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > AFAICT from INFRA ticket[1], donating to ASF INFRA won't be > > > >>> feasible to > > > >>> > solve our problem since INFRA's pool is fully shared and they > > > >>> have no > > > >>> > control and finer insights over resource allocation to a > > > >>> specific Apache > > > >>> > project. As mentioned in [1], Apache Arrow is moving away > from > > > >>> ASF INFRA > > > >>> > Travis pool (they are actually surprised Flink hasn't plan to > > do > > > >>> so). I > > > >>> > know that Spark is on its own build infra. If we all agree > that > > > >>> funding our > > > >>> > own build infra, I'd be glad to help investigate any > potential > > > >>> options > > > >>> > after releasing 1.9 since I'm super busy with 1.9 now. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:46 AM Chesnay Schepler > > > >>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > > >>> >> As a short-term stopgap, since we can assume this issue to > > > >>> become much > > > >>> >> worse in the following days/weeks, we could disable IT cases > > in > > > >>> PRs and > > > >>> >> only run them on master. > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> On 02/07/2019 12:03, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > > > >>> >>> People really have to stop thinking that just because > > > >>> something works > > > >>> >>> for us it is also a good solution. > > > >>> >>> Also, please remember that our builds run for 2h from start > > to > > > >>> finish, > > > >>> >>> and not the 14 _minutes_ it takes for zeppelin. > > > >>> >>> We are dealing with an entirely different scale here, both > in > > > >>> terms of > > > >>> >>> build times and number of builds. > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> In this very thread people have been complaining about long > > > >>> queue > > > >>> >>> times for their builds. Surprise, other Apache projects > have > > > >>> been > > > >>> >>> suffering the very same thing due to us not controlling our > > > >>> build > > > >>> >>> times. While switching services (be it Jenkins, CircleCI or > > > >>> whatever) > > > >>> >>> will possibly work for us (and these options are actually > > > >>> attractive, > > > >>> >>> like CircleCI's proper support for build artifacts), it > will > > > >>> also > > > >>> >>> result in us likely negatively affecting other projects in > > > >>> significant > > > >>> >>> ways. > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> Sure, the Jenkins setup has a good user experience for us, > at > > > >>> the cost > > > >>> >>> of blocking Jenkins workers for a _lot_ of time. Right now > we > > > >>> have 25 > > > >>> >>> PR's in our queue; that's possibly 50h we'd consume of > > Jenkins > > > >>> >>> resources, and the European contributors haven't even > really > > > >>> started yet. > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> FYI, the latest INFRA response from INFRA-18533: > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> "Our rough metrics shows that Flink used over 5800 hours of > > > >>> build time > > > >>> >>> last month. That is equal to EIGHT servers running 24/7 for > > > >>> the ENTIRE > > > >>> >>> MONTH. EIGHT. nonstop. > > > >>> >>> When we discovered this last night, we discussed it some > and > > > >>> are going > > > >>> >>> to tune down Flink to allow only five executors maximum. We > > > >>> cannot > > > >>> >>> allow Flink to consume so much of a Foundation shared > > > >>> resource." > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> So yes, we either > > > >>> >>> a) have to heavily reduce our CI usage or > > > >>> >>> b) fund our own, either maintaining it ourselves or > donating > > > >>> to Apache. > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> On 02/07/2019 05:11, Bowen Li wrote: > > > >>> >>>> By looking at the git history of the Jenkins script, its > > core > > > >>> part > > > >>> >>>> was finished in March 2017 (and only two minor update in > > > >>> 2017/2018), > > > >>> >>>> so it's been running for over two years now and feels like > > > >>> Zepplin > > > >>> >>>> community has been quite happy with it. @Jeff Zhang > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> can > you > > > >>> share your insights and user > > > >>> >>>> experience with the Jenkins+Travis approach? > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> Things like: > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> - has the approach completely solved the resource capacity > > > >>> problem > > > >>> >>>> for Zepplin community? is Zepplin community happy with the > > > >>> result? > > > >>> >>>> - is the whole configuration chain stable (e.g. uptime) > > > >>> enough? > > > >>> >>>> - how often do you need to maintain the Jenkins infra? how > > > >>> many > > > >>> >>>> people are usually involved in maintenance and bug-fixes? > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> The downside of this approach seems mostly to be on the > > > >>> maintenance > > > >>> >>>> to me - maintain the script and Jenkins infra. > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> ** Having Our Own Travis-CI.com Account ** > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> Another alternative I've been thinking of is to have our > own > > > >>> >>>> travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> < > http://travis-ci.com> > > > >>> account with paid dedicated > > > >>> >>>> resources. Note travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> > > > >>> <http://travis-ci.org> is the free > > > >>> >>>> version and travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> > > > >>> <http://travis-ci.com> is the commercial > > > >>> >>>> version. We currently use a shared resource pool managed > by > > > >>> ASK INFRA > > > >>> >>>> team on travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> > > > >>> <http://travis-ci.org>, but we have no control > > > >>> >>>> over it - we can't see how it's configured, how much > > > >>> resources are > > > >>> >>>> available, how resources are allocated among Apache > > projects, > > > >>> etc. > > > >>> >>>> The nice thing about having an account on travis-ci.com > > > >>> <http://travis-ci.com> > > > >>> >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> are: > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> - relatively low cost with much better resource guarantee > > > >>> than what > > > >>> >>>> we currently have [1]: $249/month with 5 dedicated > > > >>> concurrency, > > > >>> >>>> $489/month with 10 concurrency > > > >>> >>>> - low maintenance work compared to using Jenkins > > > >>> >>>> - (potentially) no migration cost according to Travis's > doc > > > >>> [2] > > > >>> >>>> (pending verification) > > > >>> >>>> - full control over the build capacity/configuration > > > >>> compared to > > > >>> >>>> using ASF INFRA's pool > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> I'd be surprised if we as such a vibrant community cannot > > > >>> find and > > > >>> >>>> fund $249*12=$2988 a year in exchange for a much better > > > >>> developer > > > >>> >>>> experience and much higher productivity. > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> [1] https://travis-ci.com/plans > > > >>> >>>> [2] > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration > > > >>> > > > >>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM Chesnay Schepler > > > >>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> So yes, the Jenkins job keeps pulling the state from > > > >>> Travis until it > > > >>> >>>> finishes. > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> Note sure I'm comfortable with the idea of using > > Jenkins > > > >>> workers > > > >>> >>>> just to > > > >>> >>>> idle for a several hours. > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> On 29/06/2019 14:56, Jeff Zhang wrote: > > > >>> >>>> > Here's what zeppelin community did, we make a > python > > > >>> script to > > > >>> >>>> check the > > > >>> >>>> > build status of pull request. > > > >>> >>>> > Here's script: > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/travis_check.py > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > And this is the script we used in Jenkins build > job. > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > if [ -f "travis_check.py" ]; then > > > >>> >>>> > git log -n 1 > > > >>> >>>> > STATUS=$(curl -s $BUILD_URL | grep -e "GitHub > pull > > > >>> >>>> request.*from.*" | sed > > > >>> >>>> > 's/.*GitHub pull request <a > > > >>> >>>> > > href=\"\(https[^"]*\).*from[^"]*.\(https[^"]*\).*/\1 > > > >>> \2/g') > > > >>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(echo $STATUS | sed > 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') > > > >>> >>>> > PR=$(echo $STATUS | awk '{print $1}' | sed > > > >>> >>>> 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') > > > >>> >>>> > #COMMIT=$(git log -n 1 | grep "^Merge:" | awk > > > >>> '{print $3}') > > > >>> >>>> > #if [ -z $COMMIT ]; then > > > >>> >>>> > # COMMIT=$(curl -s > > > >>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR > > > >>> >>>> > | grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" > | > > > >>> tr '\n' ' ' > > > >>> >>>> | sed > > > >>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = > '\n' > > | > > > >>> grep -v > > > >>> >>>> "apache:" | > > > >>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') > > > >>> >>>> > #fi > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > # get commit hash from PR > > > >>> >>>> > COMMIT=$(curl -s > > > >>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR | > > > >>> >>>> > grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | > tr > > > >>> '\n' ' ' > > > >>> >>>> | sed > > > >>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = > '\n' > > | > > > >>> grep -v > > > >>> >>>> "apache:" | > > > >>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') > > > >>> >>>> > sleep 30 # sleep few moment to wait travis > starts > > > >>> the build > > > >>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 > > > >>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || > > > >>> RET_CODE=$? > > > >>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # try with > repository > > > >>> name when > > > >>> >>>> travis-ci is > > > >>> >>>> > not available in the account > > > >>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 > > > >>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(curl -s > > > >>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR > > > >>> >>>> > | grep '"full_name":' | grep -v "apache/zeppelin" | > > sed > > > >>> >>>> > 's/.*[:][^"]*["]\([^/]*\).*/\1/g') > > > >>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || > > > >>> RET_CODE=$? > > > >>> >>>> > fi > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # fail with can't > > find > > > >>> build > > > >>> >>>> information in > > > >>> >>>> > the travis > > > >>> >>>> > set +x > > > >>> >>>> > echo > > > >>> "-----------------------------------------------------" > > > >>> >>>> > echo "Looks like travis-ci is not configured > for > > > >>> your fork." > > > >>> >>>> > echo "Please setup by swich on 'zeppelin' > > > >>> repository at > > > >>> >>>> > https://travis-ci.org/profile and travis-ci." > > > >>> >>>> > echo "And then make sure 'Build branch > updates' > > > >>> option is > > > >>> >>>> enabled in > > > >>> >>>> > the settings > > > >>> https://travis-ci.org/${AUTHOR}/zeppelin/settings > > > >>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings> > > > >>> >>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings>." > > > >>> >>>> > echo "" > > > >>> >>>> > echo "To trigger CI after setup, you will need > > > >>> ammend your > > > >>> >>>> last commit > > > >>> >>>> > with" > > > >>> >>>> > echo "git commit --amend" > > > >>> >>>> > echo "git push your-remote HEAD --force" > > > >>> >>>> > echo "" > > > >>> >>>> > echo "See > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > http://zeppelin.apache.org/contribution/contributions.html#continuous-integration > > > >>> >>>> > ." > > > >>> >>>> > fi > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > exit $RET_CODE > > > >>> >>>> > else > > > >>> >>>> > set +x > > > >>> >>>> > echo "travis_check.py does not exists" > > > >>> >>>> > exit 1 > > > >>> >>>> > fi > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto: > [hidden email] > > >>> > > > >>> 于2019年6月29日周六 下午3:17写道： > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> >> Does this imply that a Jenkins job is active as > long > > > >>> as the > > > >>> >>>> Travis build > > > >>> >>>> >> runs? > > > >>> >>>> >> > > > >>> >>>> >> On 26/06/2019 21:28, Bowen Li wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>> Hi, > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> @Dawid, I think the "long test running" as I > > > >>> mentioned in the > > > >>> >>>> first > > > >>> >>>> >> email, > > > >>> >>>> >>> also as you guys said, belongs to "a big effort > > > >>> which is much > > > >>> >>>> harder to > > > >>> >>>> >>> accomplish in a short period of time and may > > deserve > > > >>> its own > > > >>> >>>> separate > > > >>> >>>> >>> discussion". Thus I didn't include it in what we > > can > > > >>> do in a > > > >>> >>>> foreseeable > > > >>> >>>> >>> short term. > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> Besides, I don't think that's the ultimate reason > > > >>> for lack of > > > >>> >>>> build > > > >>> >>>> >>> resources. Even if the build is shortened to > > > >>> something like > > > >>> >>>> 2h, the > > > >>> >>>> >>> problems of no build machine works about 6 or > more > > > >>> hours in > > > >>> >>>> PST daytime > > > >>> >>>> >>> that I described will still happen, because no > > > >>> machine from > > > >>> >>>> ASF INFRA's > > > >>> >>>> >>> pool is allocated to Flink. As I have paid close > > > >>> attention to > > > >>> >>>> the build > > > >>> >>>> >>> queue in the past few weekdays, it's a pretty > clear > > > >>> pattern now. > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> **The ultimate root cause** for that is - we > don't > > > >>> have any > > > >>> >>>> **dedicated** > > > >>> >>>> >>> build resources that we can stably rely on. I'm > > > >>> actually ok to > > > >>> >>>> wait for a > > > >>> >>>> >>> long time if there are build requests running, it > > > >>> means at > > > >>> >>>> least we are > > > >>> >>>> >>> making progress. But I'm not ok with no build > > > >>> resource. A > > > >>> >>>> better place I > > > >>> >>>> >>> think we should aim at in short term is to always > > > >>> have at > > > >>> >>>> least a central > > > >>> >>>> >>> pool (can be 3 or 5) of machines dedicated to > build > > > >>> Flink at > > > >>> >>>> any time, or > > > >>> >>>> >>> maybe use users resources. > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> @Chesnay @Robert I synced with Jeff offline that > > > >>> Zeppelin > > > >>> >>>> community is > > > >>> >>>> >>> using a Jenkins job to automatically build on > > users' > > > >>> travis > > > >>> >>>> account and > > > >>> >>>> >>> link the result back to github PR. I guess the > > > >>> Jenkins job > > > >>> >>>> would fetch > > > >>> >>>> >>> latest upstream master and build the PR against > it. > > > >>> Jeff has > > > >>> >>>> filed > > > >>> >>>> >> tickets > > > >>> >>>> >>> to learn and get access to the Jenkins infra. > It'll > > > >>> better to > > > >>> >>>> fully > > > >>> >>>> >>> understand it first before judging this approach. > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> I also heard good things about CircleCI, and ASF > > > >>> INFRA seems > > > >>> >>>> to have a > > > >>> >>>> >> pool > > > >>> >>>> >>> of build capacity there too. Can be an > alternative > > > >>> to consider. > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:44 AM Dawid > Wysakowicz < > > > >>> >>>> >> [hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>> Sorry to jump in late, but I think Bowen missed > > the > > > >>> most > > > >>> >>>> important point > > > >>> >>>> >>>> from Chesnay's previous message in the summary. > > The > > > >>> ultimate > > > >>> >>>> reason for > > > >>> >>>> >>>> all the problems is that the tests take close > to 2 > > > >>> hours to > > > >>> >>>> run already. > > > >>> >>>> >>>> I fully support this claim: "Unless people start > > > >>> caring about > > > >>> >>>> test times > > > >>> >>>> >>>> before adding them, this issue cannot be solved" > > > >>> >>>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>> This is also another reason why using user's > > Travis > > > >>> account > > > >>> >>>> won't help. > > > >>> >>>> >>>> Every few weeks we reach the user's time limit > for > > > >>> a single > > > >>> >>>> profile. > > > >>> >>>> >>>> This makes the user's builds simply fail, until > we > > > >>> either > > > >>> >>>> properly > > > >>> >>>> >>>> decrease the time the tests take (which I am not > > > >>> sure we ever > > > >>> >>>> did) or > > > >>> >>>> >>>> postpone the problem by splitting into more > > > >>> profiles. (Note > > > >>> >>>> that the ASF > > > >>> >>>> >>>> Travis account has higher time limits) > > > >>> >>>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>> Best, > > > >>> >>>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>> Dawid > > > >>> >>>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>> On 26/06/2019 09:36, Robert Metzger wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> Do we know if using "the best" available > hardware > > > >>> would > > > >>> >>>> improve the > > > >>> >>>> >> build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> times? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> Imagine we would run the build on machines with > > > >>> plenty of > > > >>> >>>> main memory > > > >>> >>>> >> to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> mount everything to ramdisk + the latest CPU > > > >>> architecture? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> Throwing hardware at the problem could help > > reduce > > > >>> the time > > > >>> >>>> of an > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> individual build, and using our own > > infrastructure > > > >>> would > > > >>> >>>> remove our > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> dependency on Apache's Travis account (with the > > > >>> obvious > > > >>> >>>> downside of > > > >>> >>>> >>>> having > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> to maintain the infrastructure) > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> We could use an open source travis alternative, > > to > > > >>> have a > > > >>> >>>> similar > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> experience and make the migration easy. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:34 AM Chesnay > Schepler > > > >>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> >From what I gathered, there's no special > > > >>> sauce that the > > > >>> >>>> Zeppelin > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> project uses which actually integrates a users > > > >>> Travis > > > >>> >>>> account into the > > > >>> >>>> >>>> PR. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> They just disabled Travis for PRs. And that's > > > >>> kind of it. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> Naturally we can do this (duh) and safe the > ASF > > a > > > >>> fair > > > >>> >>>> amount of > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> resources, but there are downsides: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> The discoverability of the Travis check takes > a > > > >>> nose-dive. > > > >>> >>>> Either we > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> require every contributor to always, an every > > > >>> commit, also > > > >>> >>>> post a > > > >>> >>>> >> Travis > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> build, or we have the reviewer sift through > the > > > >>> >>>> contributors account > > > >>> >>>> >> to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> find it. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> This is rather cumbersome. Additionally, it's > > > >>> also not > > > >>> >>>> equivalent to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> having a PR build. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> A normal branch build takes a branch as is and > > > >>> tests it. A > > > >>> >>>> PR build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> merges the branch into master, and then runs > it. > > > >>> (Fun fact: > > > >>> >>>> This is > > > >>> >>>> >> why > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> a PR without merge conflicts is not being run > on > > > >>> Travis.) > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> And ultimately, everyone can already make use > > > >>> of this > > > >>> >>>> approach anyway. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> On 25/06/2019 08:02, Jark Wu wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jeff, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing the Zeppelin approach. I > > > >>> think it's a > > > >>> >>>> good idea to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> leverage user's travis account. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> In this way, we can have almost unlimited > > > >>> concurrent build > > > >>> >>>> jobs and > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> developers can restart build by themselves > > > >>> (currently only > > > >>> >>>> committers > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> can restart PR's build). > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> But I'm still not very clear how to integrate > > > >>> user's > > > >>> >>>> travis build > > > >>> >>>> >> into > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> the Flink pull request's build automatically. > > > >>> Can you > > > >>> >>>> explain more in > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> detail? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Another question: does travis only build > > > >>> branches for user > > > >>> >>>> account? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> My concern is that builds for PRs will rebase > > > >>> user's > > > >>> >>>> commits against > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> current master branch. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> This will help us to find problems before > > > >>> merge. Builds > > > >>> >>>> for branches > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> will lose the impact of new commits in > master. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> How does Zeppelin solve this problem? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again for sharing the idea. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Regards, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jark > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:01, Jeff Zhang > > > >>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Folks, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Zeppelin meet this kind of issue before, we > > > >>> solve > > > >>> >>>> it by > > > >>> >>>> >> delegating > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> each > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> one's PR build to his travis account > > > >>> (Everyone can > > > >>> >>>> have 5 free > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> slot for > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis build). > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Apache account travis build is only > triggered > > > >>> when > > > >>> >>>> PR is merged. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Kurt Young <[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> 于2019年6月25日周二 上午10:16写道： > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > (Forgot to cc George) > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Best, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Kurt > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kurt > Young > > > >>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > > > >>> >>>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Hi Bowen, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Thanks for bringing this up. We > > > >>> actually have > > > >>> >>>> discussed > > > >>> >>>> >> about > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> this, and I > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > think Till and George have > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > already spend sometime investigating > > > >>> it. I have > > > >>> >>>> cced both of > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> them, and > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > maybe they can share > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > their findings. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Best, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Kurt > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:08 AM Jark Wu > > > >>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > > > >>> >>>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Hi Bowen, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Thanks for bringing this. We also > > > >>> suffered from > > > >>> >>>> the long > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> build time. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I agree that we should focus on > > > >>> solving build > > > >>> >>>> capacity > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> problem in the > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> thread. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> My observation is there is only one > > > >>> build is > > > >>> >>>> running, all > > > >>> >>>> >> the > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> others > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> (other > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> PRs, master) are pending. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> The pricing plan[1] of travis shows > > > >>> it can > > > >>> >>>> support > > > >>> >>>> >> concurrent > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > jobs. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> But I don't know which plan we are > > > >>> using, might > > > >>> >>>> be the free > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan for > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > open > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> source. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I cc-ed Chesnay who may have some > > > >>> experience on > > > >>> >>>> Travis. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Regards, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Jark > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> [1]: https://travis-ci.com/plans > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 08:11, Bowen Li > < > > > >>> >>>> >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > Hi Steven, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > I think you may not read what I > > > >>> wrote. The > > > >>> >>>> discussion is > > > >>> >>>> >>>> about > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > "unstable > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > build **capacity**", in another word > > > >>> >>>> "unstable / lack of > > > >>> >>>> >>>> build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> resources", > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > not "unstable build". > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:40 PM > > > >>> Steven Wu > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > long and sometimes unstable build > is > > > >>> >>>> definitely a pain > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> point. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > I suspect the build failure here in > > > >>> >>>> >> flink-connector-kafka > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> is not > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> related > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > my change. but there is no easy > > > >>> re-run the > > > >>> >>>> build on > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis UI. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > search showed a trick of > > > >>> close-and-open the > > > >>> >>>> PR will > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> trigger rebuild. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> but > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that could add noises to the PR > > > >>> activities. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/545555519 > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > travis-ci for my personal repo > > > >>> often failed > > > >>> >>>> with > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> exceeding time > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > limit > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > after > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 4+ hours. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > The job exceeded the maximum time > > > >>> limit for > > > >>> >>>> jobs, and > > > >>> >>>> >> has > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> been > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > terminated. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:15 PM > > > >>> Bowen Li > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto: > > [hidden email]> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/549681530 > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> This build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > request > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > has > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > been sitting at **HEAD of the > > > >>> queue** > > > >>> >>>> since I first > > > >>> >>>> >> saw > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> it at PST > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 10:30am > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > (not sure how long it's been > > > >>> there before > > > >>> >>>> 10:30am). > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> It's PST > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > 4:12pm > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> now > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > and > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > it hasn't started yet. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:48 PM > > > >>> Bowen Li > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto: > > [hidden email]> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > Hi devs, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I've been experiencing the pain > > > >>> >>>> resulting from lack > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> of stable > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > capacity on Travis for Flink > > > >>> PRs [1]. > > > >>> >>>> >> Specifically, I > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> noticed > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> often > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > no > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build in the queue is making > any > > > >>> >>>> progress for > > > >>> >>>> >> hours, > > > >>> >>>> >>>> and > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > suddenly > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> 5 > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > or > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 6 > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > builds kick off all together > > > >>> after the > > > >>> >>>> long pause. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> I'm at PST > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > (UTC-08) > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > time > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > zone, and I've seen pause can > > > >>> be as > > > >>> >>>> long as 6 hours > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> from PST 9am > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 3pm > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > (let alone the time needed to > > > >>> drain the > > > >>> >>>> queue > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> afterwards). > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I think this has greatly > > > >>> impacted our > > > >>> >>>> productivity. > > > >>> >>>> >>>> I've > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> experienced > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > PRs submitted in the early > > > >>> morning of > > > >>> >>>> PST time zone > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> won't finish > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > their > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build until late night of the > > > >>> same day. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > So my questions are: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - Has anyone else experienced > > > >>> the same > > > >>> >>>> problem or > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> have similar > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > observation > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > on TravisCI? (I suspect it > > > >>> has things > > > >>> >>>> to do with > > > >>> >>>> >> time > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> zone) > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - What pricing plan of > > > >>> TravisCI is > > > >>> >>>> Flink currently > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> using? Is it > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> the > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > free > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > plan for open source > > > >>> projects? What > > > >>> >>>> are the > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> guaranteed build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> capacity > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > of > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > the current plan? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - If the current pricing plan > > > >>> (either > > > >>> >>>> free or paid) > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> can't > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > provide > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > stable > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build capacity, can we > > > >>> upgrade to a > > > >>> >>>> higher priced > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan with > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > larger > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > and > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > more > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > stable build capacity? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > BTW, another factor that > > > >>> contribute to > > > >>> >>>> the > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> productivity problem > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > is > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > that > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > our build is slow - we run > > > >>> full build > > > >>> >>>> for every PR > > > >>> >>>> >>>> and a > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> successful > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > full > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build takes ~5h. We > > > >>> definitely have > > > >>> >>>> more options to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> solve it, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > for > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > instance, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > modularize the build graphs > > > >>> and reuse > > > >>> >>>> artifacts > > > >>> >>>> >> from > > > >>> >>>> >>>> the > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > previous > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > build. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > But I think that can be a big > > > >>> effort > > > >>> >>>> which is much > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> harder to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > accomplish > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > in > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > a short period of time and > > > >>> may deserve > > > >>> >>>> its own > > > >>> >>>> >>>> separate > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> discussion. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > [1] > > > >>> >>>> >> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/pull_requests > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> -- > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jeff Zhang > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >> > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
|
I noticed that switching to a separate Travis account to run CI is actually impossible from what https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18703 said. Hope another option from Chesnay to speed up the CI progress would work soon.
Best Yun Tang ________________________________ From: Jark Wu <[hidden email]> Sent: Friday, July 5, 2019 10:34 To: dev Cc: [hidden email]; Bowen Li Subject: Re: [VOTE] Migrate to sponsored Travis account +1 for the migration and great thanks to Chesnay and Bowen for pushing this! Cheers, Jark On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 09:34, Congxian Qiu <[hidden email]> wrote: > +1 for the migration. > > Best, > Congxian > > > Hequn Cheng <[hidden email]> 于2019年7月4日周四 下午9:42写道： > > > +1. > > > > And thanks a lot to Chesnay for pushing this. > > > > Best, Hequn > > > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 8:07 PM Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > > > Note that the Flinkbot approach isn't that trivial either; we can't > > > _just_ trigger builds for a branch in the apache repo, but would first > > > have to clone the branch/pr into a separate repository (that is owned > by > > > the github account that the travis account would be tied to). > > > > > > One roadblock after the next showing up... > > > > > > On 04/07/2019 11:59, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > > > > Small update with mostly bad news: > > > > > > > > INFRA doesn't know whether it is possible, and referred my to Travis > > > > support. > > > > They did point out that it could be problematic in regards to > > > > read/write permissions for the repository. > > > > > > > > From my own findings /so far/ with a test repo/organization, it does > > > > not appear possible to configure the Travis account used for a > > > > specific repository. > > > > > > > > So yeah, if we go down this route we may have to pimp the Flinkbot to > > > > trigger builds through the Travis REST API. > > > > > > > > On 04/07/2019 10:46, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > > > >> I've raised a JIRA > > > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18703>with INFRA to > > > >> inquire whether it would be possible to switch to a different Travis > > > >> account, and if so what steps would need to be taken. > > > >> We need a proper confirmation from INFRA since we are not in full > > > >> control of the flink repository (for example, we cannot access the > > > >> settings page). > > > >> > > > >> If this is indeed possible, Ververica is willing sponsor a Travis > > > >> account for the Flink project. > > > >> This would provide us with more than enough resources than we need. > > > >> > > > >> Since this makes the project more reliant on resources provided by > > > >> external companies I would like to vote on this. > > > >> > > > >> Please vote on this proposal, as follows: > > > >> [ ] +1, Approve the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis > > > >> account, provided that INFRA approves > > > >> [ ] -1, Do not approach the migration to a Ververica-sponsored > Travis > > > >> account > > > >> > > > >> The vote will be open for at least 24h, and until we have > > > >> confirmation from INFRA. The voting period may be shorter than the > > > >> usual 3 days since our current is effectively not working. > > > >> > > > >> On 04/07/2019 06:51, Bowen Li wrote: > > > >>> Re: > Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to > > > >>> an entirely different CI service? > > > >>> > > > >>> I reached out to Wes and Krisztián from Apache Arrow PMC. They are > > > >>> currently moving away from ASF's Travis to their own in-house metal > > > >>> machines at [1] with custom CI application at [2]. They've seen > > > >>> significant improvement w.r.t both much higher performance and > > > >>> basically no resource waiting time, "night-and-day" difference > > > >>> quoting Wes. > > > >>> > > > >>> Re: > If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our > > > >>> project, then this might be something we can do fairly quickly? > > > >>> > > > >>> I believe so, according to [3] and [4] > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> [1] https://ci.ursalabs.org/ <https://ci.ursalabs.org/#/> > > > >>> [2] https://github.com/ursa-labs/ursabot > > > >>> [3] > > > >>> > > > > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration > > > >>> > > > >>> [4] > > > >>> > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-on-travis-ci-com > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:01 AM Chesnay Schepler < > [hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to > an > > > >>> entirely different CI service? > > > >>> > > > >>> If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our > > > >>> project, then > > > >>> this might be something we can do fairly quickly? > > > >>> > > > >>> On 03/07/2019 05:55, Bowen Li wrote: > > > >>> > I responded in the INFRA ticket [1] that I believe they are > > > >>> using a wrong > > > >>> > metric against Flink and the total build time is a completely > > > >>> different > > > >>> > thing than guaranteed build capacity. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > My response: > > > >>> > > > > >>> > "As mentioned above, since I started to pay attention to > > Flink's > > > >>> build > > > >>> > queue a few tens of days ago, I'm in Seattle and I saw no > build > > > >>> was kicking > > > >>> > off in PST daytime in weekdays for Flink. Our teammates in > > China > > > >>> and Europe > > > >>> > have also reported similar observations. So we need to > evaluate > > > >>> how the > > > >>> > large total build time came from - if 1) your number and 2) > our > > > >>> > observations from three locations that cover pretty much a > full > > > >>> day, are > > > >>> > all true, I **guess** one reason can be that - highly likely > > the > > > >>> extra > > > >>> > build time came from weekends when other Apache projects may > be > > > >>> idle and > > > >>> > Flink just drains hard its congested queue. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack > of > > > >>> resources > > > >>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, > > > >>> dedicated** > > > >>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even > if > > > >>> no build is > > > >>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head > > > >>> in PST > > > >>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an > absurd > > > >>> amount of > > > >>> > waiting time. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system > and > > > >>> grants > > > >>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for > > > >>> Flink, that'll > > > >>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack > of > > > >>> resources > > > >>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, > > > >>> dedicated** > > > >>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even > if > > > >>> no build is > > > >>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head > > > >>> in PST > > > >>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an > absurd > > > >>> amount of > > > >>> > waiting time. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system > and > > > >>> grants > > > >>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for > > > >>> Flink, that'll > > > >>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > I feel what's missing in the ASF INFRA's Travis resource pool > > is > > > >>> some level > > > >>> > of build capacity SLAs and certainty" > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Again, I believe there are differences in nature of these two > > > >>> problems, > > > >>> > long build time v.s. lack of dedicated build resource. That's > > > >>> saying, > > > >>> > shortening build time may relieve the situation, and may not. > > > >>> I'm sightly > > > >>> > negative on disabling IT cases for PRs, due to the downside > is > > > >>> that we are > > > >>> > at risk of any potential bugs in PR that UTs doesn't catch, > and > > > >>> may cost a > > > >>> > lot more to fix and if it slows others down or even block > > > >>> others, but am > > > >>> > open to others opinions on it. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > AFAICT from INFRA ticket[1], donating to ASF INFRA won't be > > > >>> feasible to > > > >>> > solve our problem since INFRA's pool is fully shared and they > > > >>> have no > > > >>> > control and finer insights over resource allocation to a > > > >>> specific Apache > > > >>> > project. As mentioned in [1], Apache Arrow is moving away > from > > > >>> ASF INFRA > > > >>> > Travis pool (they are actually surprised Flink hasn't plan to > > do > > > >>> so). I > > > >>> > know that Spark is on its own build infra. If we all agree > that > > > >>> funding our > > > >>> > own build infra, I'd be glad to help investigate any > potential > > > >>> options > > > >>> > after releasing 1.9 since I'm super busy with 1.9 now. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:46 AM Chesnay Schepler > > > >>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > > >>> >> As a short-term stopgap, since we can assume this issue to > > > >>> become much > > > >>> >> worse in the following days/weeks, we could disable IT cases > > in > > > >>> PRs and > > > >>> >> only run them on master. > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> On 02/07/2019 12:03, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > > > >>> >>> People really have to stop thinking that just because > > > >>> something works > > > >>> >>> for us it is also a good solution. > > > >>> >>> Also, please remember that our builds run for 2h from start > > to > > > >>> finish, > > > >>> >>> and not the 14 _minutes_ it takes for zeppelin. > > > >>> >>> We are dealing with an entirely different scale here, both > in > > > >>> terms of > > > >>> >>> build times and number of builds. > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> In this very thread people have been complaining about long > > > >>> queue > > > >>> >>> times for their builds. Surprise, other Apache projects > have > > > >>> been > > > >>> >>> suffering the very same thing due to us not controlling our > > > >>> build > > > >>> >>> times. While switching services (be it Jenkins, CircleCI or > > > >>> whatever) > > > >>> >>> will possibly work for us (and these options are actually > > > >>> attractive, > > > >>> >>> like CircleCI's proper support for build artifacts), it > will > > > >>> also > > > >>> >>> result in us likely negatively affecting other projects in > > > >>> significant > > > >>> >>> ways. > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> Sure, the Jenkins setup has a good user experience for us, > at > > > >>> the cost > > > >>> >>> of blocking Jenkins workers for a _lot_ of time. Right now > we > > > >>> have 25 > > > >>> >>> PR's in our queue; that's possibly 50h we'd consume of > > Jenkins > > > >>> >>> resources, and the European contributors haven't even > really > > > >>> started yet. > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> FYI, the latest INFRA response from INFRA-18533: > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> "Our rough metrics shows that Flink used over 5800 hours of > > > >>> build time > > > >>> >>> last month. That is equal to EIGHT servers running 24/7 for > > > >>> the ENTIRE > > > >>> >>> MONTH. EIGHT. nonstop. > > > >>> >>> When we discovered this last night, we discussed it some > and > > > >>> are going > > > >>> >>> to tune down Flink to allow only five executors maximum. We > > > >>> cannot > > > >>> >>> allow Flink to consume so much of a Foundation shared > > > >>> resource." > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> So yes, we either > > > >>> >>> a) have to heavily reduce our CI usage or > > > >>> >>> b) fund our own, either maintaining it ourselves or > donating > > > >>> to Apache. > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> On 02/07/2019 05:11, Bowen Li wrote: > > > >>> >>>> By looking at the git history of the Jenkins script, its > > core > > > >>> part > > > >>> >>>> was finished in March 2017 (and only two minor update in > > > >>> 2017/2018), > > > >>> >>>> so it's been running for over two years now and feels like > > > >>> Zepplin > > > >>> >>>> community has been quite happy with it. @Jeff Zhang > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> can > you > > > >>> share your insights and user > > > >>> >>>> experience with the Jenkins+Travis approach? > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> Things like: > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> - has the approach completely solved the resource capacity > > > >>> problem > > > >>> >>>> for Zepplin community? is Zepplin community happy with the > > > >>> result? > > > >>> >>>> - is the whole configuration chain stable (e.g. uptime) > > > >>> enough? > > > >>> >>>> - how often do you need to maintain the Jenkins infra? how > > > >>> many > > > >>> >>>> people are usually involved in maintenance and bug-fixes? > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> The downside of this approach seems mostly to be on the > > > >>> maintenance > > > >>> >>>> to me - maintain the script and Jenkins infra. > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> ** Having Our Own Travis-CI.com Account ** > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> Another alternative I've been thinking of is to have our > own > > > >>> >>>> travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> < > http://travis-ci.com> > > > >>> account with paid dedicated > > > >>> >>>> resources. Note travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> > > > >>> <http://travis-ci.org> is the free > > > >>> >>>> version and travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> > > > >>> <http://travis-ci.com> is the commercial > > > >>> >>>> version. We currently use a shared resource pool managed > by > > > >>> ASK INFRA > > > >>> >>>> team on travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> > > > >>> <http://travis-ci.org>, but we have no control > > > >>> >>>> over it - we can't see how it's configured, how much > > > >>> resources are > > > >>> >>>> available, how resources are allocated among Apache > > projects, > > > >>> etc. > > > >>> >>>> The nice thing about having an account on travis-ci.com > > > >>> <http://travis-ci.com> > > > >>> >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> are: > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> - relatively low cost with much better resource guarantee > > > >>> than what > > > >>> >>>> we currently have [1]: $249/month with 5 dedicated > > > >>> concurrency, > > > >>> >>>> $489/month with 10 concurrency > > > >>> >>>> - low maintenance work compared to using Jenkins > > > >>> >>>> - (potentially) no migration cost according to Travis's > doc > > > >>> [2] > > > >>> >>>> (pending verification) > > > >>> >>>> - full control over the build capacity/configuration > > > >>> compared to > > > >>> >>>> using ASF INFRA's pool > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> I'd be surprised if we as such a vibrant community cannot > > > >>> find and > > > >>> >>>> fund $249*12=$2988 a year in exchange for a much better > > > >>> developer > > > >>> >>>> experience and much higher productivity. > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> [1] https://travis-ci.com/plans > > > >>> >>>> [2] > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration > > > >>> > > > >>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM Chesnay Schepler > > > >>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> So yes, the Jenkins job keeps pulling the state from > > > >>> Travis until it > > > >>> >>>> finishes. > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> Note sure I'm comfortable with the idea of using > > Jenkins > > > >>> workers > > > >>> >>>> just to > > > >>> >>>> idle for a several hours. > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> On 29/06/2019 14:56, Jeff Zhang wrote: > > > >>> >>>> > Here's what zeppelin community did, we make a > python > > > >>> script to > > > >>> >>>> check the > > > >>> >>>> > build status of pull request. > > > >>> >>>> > Here's script: > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/travis_check.py > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > And this is the script we used in Jenkins build > job. > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > if [ -f "travis_check.py" ]; then > > > >>> >>>> > git log -n 1 > > > >>> >>>> > STATUS=$(curl -s $BUILD_URL | grep -e "GitHub > pull > > > >>> >>>> request.*from.*" | sed > > > >>> >>>> > 's/.*GitHub pull request <a > > > >>> >>>> > > href=\"\(https[^"]*\).*from[^"]*.\(https[^"]*\).*/\1 > > > >>> \2/g') > > > >>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(echo $STATUS | sed > 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') > > > >>> >>>> > PR=$(echo $STATUS | awk '{print $1}' | sed > > > >>> >>>> 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') > > > >>> >>>> > #COMMIT=$(git log -n 1 | grep "^Merge:" | awk > > > >>> '{print $3}') > > > >>> >>>> > #if [ -z $COMMIT ]; then > > > >>> >>>> > # COMMIT=$(curl -s > > > >>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR > > > >>> >>>> > | grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" > | > > > >>> tr '\n' ' ' > > > >>> >>>> | sed > > > >>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = > '\n' > > | > > > >>> grep -v > > > >>> >>>> "apache:" | > > > >>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') > > > >>> >>>> > #fi > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > # get commit hash from PR > > > >>> >>>> > COMMIT=$(curl -s > > > >>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR | > > > >>> >>>> > grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | > tr > > > >>> '\n' ' ' > > > >>> >>>> | sed > > > >>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = > '\n' > > | > > > >>> grep -v > > > >>> >>>> "apache:" | > > > >>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') > > > >>> >>>> > sleep 30 # sleep few moment to wait travis > starts > > > >>> the build > > > >>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 > > > >>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || > > > >>> RET_CODE=$? > > > >>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # try with > repository > > > >>> name when > > > >>> >>>> travis-ci is > > > >>> >>>> > not available in the account > > > >>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 > > > >>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(curl -s > > > >>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR > > > >>> >>>> > | grep '"full_name":' | grep -v "apache/zeppelin" | > > sed > > > >>> >>>> > 's/.*[:][^"]*["]\([^/]*\).*/\1/g') > > > >>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || > > > >>> RET_CODE=$? > > > >>> >>>> > fi > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # fail with can't > > find > > > >>> build > > > >>> >>>> information in > > > >>> >>>> > the travis > > > >>> >>>> > set +x > > > >>> >>>> > echo > > > >>> "-----------------------------------------------------" > > > >>> >>>> > echo "Looks like travis-ci is not configured > for > > > >>> your fork." > > > >>> >>>> > echo "Please setup by swich on 'zeppelin' > > > >>> repository at > > > >>> >>>> > https://travis-ci.org/profile and travis-ci." > > > >>> >>>> > echo "And then make sure 'Build branch > updates' > > > >>> option is > > > >>> >>>> enabled in > > > >>> >>>> > the settings > > > >>> https://travis-ci.org/${AUTHOR}/zeppelin/settings > > > >>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings> > > > >>> >>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings>." > > > >>> >>>> > echo "" > > > >>> >>>> > echo "To trigger CI after setup, you will need > > > >>> ammend your > > > >>> >>>> last commit > > > >>> >>>> > with" > > > >>> >>>> > echo "git commit --amend" > > > >>> >>>> > echo "git push your-remote HEAD --force" > > > >>> >>>> > echo "" > > > >>> >>>> > echo "See > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > http://zeppelin.apache.org/contribution/contributions.html#continuous-integration > > > >>> >>>> > ." > > > >>> >>>> > fi > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > exit $RET_CODE > > > >>> >>>> > else > > > >>> >>>> > set +x > > > >>> >>>> > echo "travis_check.py does not exists" > > > >>> >>>> > exit 1 > > > >>> >>>> > fi > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto: > [hidden email] > > >>> > > > >>> 于2019年6月29日周六 下午3:17写道： > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> >> Does this imply that a Jenkins job is active as > long > > > >>> as the > > > >>> >>>> Travis build > > > >>> >>>> >> runs? > > > >>> >>>> >> > > > >>> >>>> >> On 26/06/2019 21:28, Bowen Li wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>> Hi, > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> @Dawid, I think the "long test running" as I > > > >>> mentioned in the > > > >>> >>>> first > > > >>> >>>> >> email, > > > >>> >>>> >>> also as you guys said, belongs to "a big effort > > > >>> which is much > > > >>> >>>> harder to > > > >>> >>>> >>> accomplish in a short period of time and may > > deserve > > > >>> its own > > > >>> >>>> separate > > > >>> >>>> >>> discussion". Thus I didn't include it in what we > > can > > > >>> do in a > > > >>> >>>> foreseeable > > > >>> >>>> >>> short term. > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> Besides, I don't think that's the ultimate reason > > > >>> for lack of > > > >>> >>>> build > > > >>> >>>> >>> resources. Even if the build is shortened to > > > >>> something like > > > >>> >>>> 2h, the > > > >>> >>>> >>> problems of no build machine works about 6 or > more > > > >>> hours in > > > >>> >>>> PST daytime > > > >>> >>>> >>> that I described will still happen, because no > > > >>> machine from > > > >>> >>>> ASF INFRA's > > > >>> >>>> >>> pool is allocated to Flink. As I have paid close > > > >>> attention to > > > >>> >>>> the build > > > >>> >>>> >>> queue in the past few weekdays, it's a pretty > clear > > > >>> pattern now. > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> **The ultimate root cause** for that is - we > don't > > > >>> have any > > > >>> >>>> **dedicated** > > > >>> >>>> >>> build resources that we can stably rely on. I'm > > > >>> actually ok to > > > >>> >>>> wait for a > > > >>> >>>> >>> long time if there are build requests running, it > > > >>> means at > > > >>> >>>> least we are > > > >>> >>>> >>> making progress. But I'm not ok with no build > > > >>> resource. A > > > >>> >>>> better place I > > > >>> >>>> >>> think we should aim at in short term is to always > > > >>> have at > > > >>> >>>> least a central > > > >>> >>>> >>> pool (can be 3 or 5) of machines dedicated to > build > > > >>> Flink at > > > >>> >>>> any time, or > > > >>> >>>> >>> maybe use users resources. > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> @Chesnay @Robert I synced with Jeff offline that > > > >>> Zeppelin > > > >>> >>>> community is > > > >>> >>>> >>> using a Jenkins job to automatically build on > > users' > > > >>> travis > > > >>> >>>> account and > > > >>> >>>> >>> link the result back to github PR. I guess the > > > >>> Jenkins job > > > >>> >>>> would fetch > > > >>> >>>> >>> latest upstream master and build the PR against > it. > > > >>> Jeff has > > > >>> >>>> filed > > > >>> >>>> >> tickets > > > >>> >>>> >>> to learn and get access to the Jenkins infra. > It'll > > > >>> better to > > > >>> >>>> fully > > > >>> >>>> >>> understand it first before judging this approach. > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> I also heard good things about CircleCI, and ASF > > > >>> INFRA seems > > > >>> >>>> to have a > > > >>> >>>> >> pool > > > >>> >>>> >>> of build capacity there too. Can be an > alternative > > > >>> to consider. > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:44 AM Dawid > Wysakowicz < > > > >>> >>>> >> [hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>> Sorry to jump in late, but I think Bowen missed > > the > > > >>> most > > > >>> >>>> important point > > > >>> >>>> >>>> from Chesnay's previous message in the summary. > > The > > > >>> ultimate > > > >>> >>>> reason for > > > >>> >>>> >>>> all the problems is that the tests take close > to 2 > > > >>> hours to > > > >>> >>>> run already. > > > >>> >>>> >>>> I fully support this claim: "Unless people start > > > >>> caring about > > > >>> >>>> test times > > > >>> >>>> >>>> before adding them, this issue cannot be solved" > > > >>> >>>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>> This is also another reason why using user's > > Travis > > > >>> account > > > >>> >>>> won't help. > > > >>> >>>> >>>> Every few weeks we reach the user's time limit > for > > > >>> a single > > > >>> >>>> profile. > > > >>> >>>> >>>> This makes the user's builds simply fail, until > we > > > >>> either > > > >>> >>>> properly > > > >>> >>>> >>>> decrease the time the tests take (which I am not > > > >>> sure we ever > > > >>> >>>> did) or > > > >>> >>>> >>>> postpone the problem by splitting into more > > > >>> profiles. (Note > > > >>> >>>> that the ASF > > > >>> >>>> >>>> Travis account has higher time limits) > > > >>> >>>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>> Best, > > > >>> >>>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>> Dawid > > > >>> >>>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>> On 26/06/2019 09:36, Robert Metzger wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> Do we know if using "the best" available > hardware > > > >>> would > > > >>> >>>> improve the > > > >>> >>>> >> build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> times? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> Imagine we would run the build on machines with > > > >>> plenty of > > > >>> >>>> main memory > > > >>> >>>> >> to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> mount everything to ramdisk + the latest CPU > > > >>> architecture? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> Throwing hardware at the problem could help > > reduce > > > >>> the time > > > >>> >>>> of an > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> individual build, and using our own > > infrastructure > > > >>> would > > > >>> >>>> remove our > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> dependency on Apache's Travis account (with the > > > >>> obvious > > > >>> >>>> downside of > > > >>> >>>> >>>> having > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> to maintain the infrastructure) > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> We could use an open source travis alternative, > > to > > > >>> have a > > > >>> >>>> similar > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> experience and make the migration easy. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:34 AM Chesnay > Schepler > > > >>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> >From what I gathered, there's no special > > > >>> sauce that the > > > >>> >>>> Zeppelin > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> project uses which actually integrates a users > > > >>> Travis > > > >>> >>>> account into the > > > >>> >>>> >>>> PR. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> They just disabled Travis for PRs. And that's > > > >>> kind of it. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> Naturally we can do this (duh) and safe the > ASF > > a > > > >>> fair > > > >>> >>>> amount of > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> resources, but there are downsides: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> The discoverability of the Travis check takes > a > > > >>> nose-dive. > > > >>> >>>> Either we > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> require every contributor to always, an every > > > >>> commit, also > > > >>> >>>> post a > > > >>> >>>> >> Travis > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> build, or we have the reviewer sift through > the > > > >>> >>>> contributors account > > > >>> >>>> >> to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> find it. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> This is rather cumbersome. Additionally, it's > > > >>> also not > > > >>> >>>> equivalent to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> having a PR build. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> A normal branch build takes a branch as is and > > > >>> tests it. A > > > >>> >>>> PR build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> merges the branch into master, and then runs > it. > > > >>> (Fun fact: > > > >>> >>>> This is > > > >>> >>>> >> why > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> a PR without merge conflicts is not being run > on > > > >>> Travis.) > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> And ultimately, everyone can already make use > > > >>> of this > > > >>> >>>> approach anyway. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> On 25/06/2019 08:02, Jark Wu wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jeff, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing the Zeppelin approach. I > > > >>> think it's a > > > >>> >>>> good idea to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> leverage user's travis account. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> In this way, we can have almost unlimited > > > >>> concurrent build > > > >>> >>>> jobs and > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> developers can restart build by themselves > > > >>> (currently only > > > >>> >>>> committers > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> can restart PR's build). > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> But I'm still not very clear how to integrate > > > >>> user's > > > >>> >>>> travis build > > > >>> >>>> >> into > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> the Flink pull request's build automatically. > > > >>> Can you > > > >>> >>>> explain more in > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> detail? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Another question: does travis only build > > > >>> branches for user > > > >>> >>>> account? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> My concern is that builds for PRs will rebase > > > >>> user's > > > >>> >>>> commits against > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> current master branch. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> This will help us to find problems before > > > >>> merge. Builds > > > >>> >>>> for branches > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> will lose the impact of new commits in > master. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> How does Zeppelin solve this problem? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again for sharing the idea. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Regards, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jark > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:01, Jeff Zhang > > > >>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Folks, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Zeppelin meet this kind of issue before, we > > > >>> solve > > > >>> >>>> it by > > > >>> >>>> >> delegating > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> each > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> one's PR build to his travis account > > > >>> (Everyone can > > > >>> >>>> have 5 free > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> slot for > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis build). > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Apache account travis build is only > triggered > > > >>> when > > > >>> >>>> PR is merged. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Kurt Young <[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> 于2019年6月25日周二 上午10:16写道： > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > (Forgot to cc George) > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Best, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Kurt > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kurt > Young > > > >>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > > > >>> >>>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Hi Bowen, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Thanks for bringing this up. We > > > >>> actually have > > > >>> >>>> discussed > > > >>> >>>> >> about > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> this, and I > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > think Till and George have > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > already spend sometime investigating > > > >>> it. I have > > > >>> >>>> cced both of > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> them, and > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > maybe they can share > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > their findings. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Best, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Kurt > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:08 AM Jark Wu > > > >>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > > > >>> >>>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Hi Bowen, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Thanks for bringing this. We also > > > >>> suffered from > > > >>> >>>> the long > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> build time. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I agree that we should focus on > > > >>> solving build > > > >>> >>>> capacity > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> problem in the > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> thread. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> My observation is there is only one > > > >>> build is > > > >>> >>>> running, all > > > >>> >>>> >> the > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> others > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> (other > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> PRs, master) are pending. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> The pricing plan[1] of travis shows > > > >>> it can > > > >>> >>>> support > > > >>> >>>> >> concurrent > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > jobs. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> But I don't know which plan we are > > > >>> using, might > > > >>> >>>> be the free > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan for > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > open > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> source. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I cc-ed Chesnay who may have some > > > >>> experience on > > > >>> >>>> Travis. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Regards, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Jark > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> [1]: https://travis-ci.com/plans > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 08:11, Bowen Li > < > > > >>> >>>> >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > Hi Steven, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > I think you may not read what I > > > >>> wrote. The > > > >>> >>>> discussion is > > > >>> >>>> >>>> about > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > "unstable > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > build **capacity**", in another word > > > >>> >>>> "unstable / lack of > > > >>> >>>> >>>> build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> resources", > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > not "unstable build". > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:40 PM > > > >>> Steven Wu > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > long and sometimes unstable build > is > > > >>> >>>> definitely a pain > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> point. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > I suspect the build failure here in > > > >>> >>>> >> flink-connector-kafka > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> is not > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> related > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > my change. but there is no easy > > > >>> re-run the > > > >>> >>>> build on > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis UI. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > search showed a trick of > > > >>> close-and-open the > > > >>> >>>> PR will > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> trigger rebuild. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> but > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that could add noises to the PR > > > >>> activities. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/545555519 > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > travis-ci for my personal repo > > > >>> often failed > > > >>> >>>> with > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> exceeding time > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > limit > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > after > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 4+ hours. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > The job exceeded the maximum time > > > >>> limit for > > > >>> >>>> jobs, and > > > >>> >>>> >> has > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> been > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > terminated. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:15 PM > > > >>> Bowen Li > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto: > > [hidden email]> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/549681530 > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> This build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > request > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > has > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > been sitting at **HEAD of the > > > >>> queue** > > > >>> >>>> since I first > > > >>> >>>> >> saw > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> it at PST > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 10:30am > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > (not sure how long it's been > > > >>> there before > > > >>> >>>> 10:30am). > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> It's PST > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > 4:12pm > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> now > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > and > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > it hasn't started yet. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:48 PM > > > >>> Bowen Li > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto: > > [hidden email]> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > Hi devs, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I've been experiencing the pain > > > >>> >>>> resulting from lack > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> of stable > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > capacity on Travis for Flink > > > >>> PRs [1]. > > > >>> >>>> >> Specifically, I > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> noticed > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> often > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > no > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build in the queue is making > any > > > >>> >>>> progress for > > > >>> >>>> >> hours, > > > >>> >>>> >>>> and > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > suddenly > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> 5 > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > or > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 6 > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > builds kick off all together > > > >>> after the > > > >>> >>>> long pause. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> I'm at PST > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > (UTC-08) > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > time > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > zone, and I've seen pause can > > > >>> be as > > > >>> >>>> long as 6 hours > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> from PST 9am > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 3pm > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > (let alone the time needed to > > > >>> drain the > > > >>> >>>> queue > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> afterwards). > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I think this has greatly > > > >>> impacted our > > > >>> >>>> productivity. > > > >>> >>>> >>>> I've > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> experienced > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > PRs submitted in the early > > > >>> morning of > > > >>> >>>> PST time zone > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> won't finish > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > their > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build until late night of the > > > >>> same day. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > So my questions are: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - Has anyone else experienced > > > >>> the same > > > >>> >>>> problem or > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> have similar > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > observation > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > on TravisCI? (I suspect it > > > >>> has things > > > >>> >>>> to do with > > > >>> >>>> >> time > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> zone) > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - What pricing plan of > > > >>> TravisCI is > > > >>> >>>> Flink currently > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> using? Is it > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> the > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > free > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > plan for open source > > > >>> projects? What > > > >>> >>>> are the > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> guaranteed build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> capacity > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > of > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > the current plan? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - If the current pricing plan > > > >>> (either > > > >>> >>>> free or paid) > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> can't > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > provide > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > stable > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build capacity, can we > > > >>> upgrade to a > > > >>> >>>> higher priced > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan with > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > larger > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > and > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > more > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > stable build capacity? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > BTW, another factor that > > > >>> contribute to > > > >>> >>>> the > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> productivity problem > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > is > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > that > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > our build is slow - we run > > > >>> full build > > > >>> >>>> for every PR > > > >>> >>>> >>>> and a > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> successful > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > full > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build takes ~5h. We > > > >>> definitely have > > > >>> >>>> more options to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> solve it, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > for > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > instance, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > modularize the build graphs > > > >>> and reuse > > > >>> >>>> artifacts > > > >>> >>>> >> from > > > >>> >>>> >>>> the > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > previous > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > build. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > But I think that can be a big > > > >>> effort > > > >>> >>>> which is much > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> harder to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > accomplish > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > in > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > a short period of time and > > > >>> may deserve > > > >>> >>>> its own > > > >>> >>>> >>>> separate > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> discussion. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > [1] > > > >>> >>>> >> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/pull_requests > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> -- > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jeff Zhang > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >> > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
Re: [VOTE] Migrate to sponsored Travis account
|
|
In reply to this post by Jark Wu-2
+1 for the migration
Best, JingsongLee ------------------------------------------------------------------ From:Jark Wu <[hidden email]> Send Time:2019年7月5日(星期五) 10:35 To:dev <[hidden email]> Cc:private <[hidden email]>; Bowen Li <[hidden email]> Subject:Re: [VOTE] Migrate to sponsored Travis account +1 for the migration and great thanks to Chesnay and Bowen for pushing this! Cheers, Jark On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 09:34, Congxian Qiu <[hidden email]> wrote: > +1 for the migration. > > Best, > Congxian > > > Hequn Cheng <[hidden email]> 于2019年7月4日周四 下午9:42写道： > > > +1. > > > > And thanks a lot to Chesnay for pushing this. > > > > Best, Hequn > > > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 8:07 PM Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > > > Note that the Flinkbot approach isn't that trivial either; we can't > > > _just_ trigger builds for a branch in the apache repo, but would first > > > have to clone the branch/pr into a separate repository (that is owned > by > > > the github account that the travis account would be tied to). > > > > > > One roadblock after the next showing up... > > > > > > On 04/07/2019 11:59, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > > > > Small update with mostly bad news: > > > > > > > > INFRA doesn't know whether it is possible, and referred my to Travis > > > > support. > > > > They did point out that it could be problematic in regards to > > > > read/write permissions for the repository. > > > > > > > > From my own findings /so far/ with a test repo/organization, it does > > > > not appear possible to configure the Travis account used for a > > > > specific repository. > > > > > > > > So yeah, if we go down this route we may have to pimp the Flinkbot to > > > > trigger builds through the Travis REST API. > > > > > > > > On 04/07/2019 10:46, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > > > >> I've raised a JIRA > > > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18703>with INFRA to > > > >> inquire whether it would be possible to switch to a different Travis > > > >> account, and if so what steps would need to be taken. > > > >> We need a proper confirmation from INFRA since we are not in full > > > >> control of the flink repository (for example, we cannot access the > > > >> settings page). > > > >> > > > >> If this is indeed possible, Ververica is willing sponsor a Travis > > > >> account for the Flink project. > > > >> This would provide us with more than enough resources than we need. > > > >> > > > >> Since this makes the project more reliant on resources provided by > > > >> external companies I would like to vote on this. > > > >> > > > >> Please vote on this proposal, as follows: > > > >> [ ] +1, Approve the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis > > > >> account, provided that INFRA approves > > > >> [ ] -1, Do not approach the migration to a Ververica-sponsored > Travis > > > >> account > > > >> > > > >> The vote will be open for at least 24h, and until we have > > > >> confirmation from INFRA. The voting period may be shorter than the > > > >> usual 3 days since our current is effectively not working. > > > >> > > > >> On 04/07/2019 06:51, Bowen Li wrote: > > > >>> Re: > Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to > > > >>> an entirely different CI service? > > > >>> > > > >>> I reached out to Wes and Krisztián from Apache Arrow PMC. They are > > > >>> currently moving away from ASF's Travis to their own in-house metal > > > >>> machines at [1] with custom CI application at [2]. They've seen > > > >>> significant improvement w.r.t both much higher performance and > > > >>> basically no resource waiting time, "night-and-day" difference > > > >>> quoting Wes. > > > >>> > > > >>> Re: > If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our > > > >>> project, then this might be something we can do fairly quickly? > > > >>> > > > >>> I believe so, according to [3] and [4] > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> [1] https://ci.ursalabs.org/ <https://ci.ursalabs.org/#/> > > > >>> [2] https://github.com/ursa-labs/ursabot > > > >>> [3] > > > >>> > > > > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration > > > >>> > > > >>> [4] > > > >>> > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-on-travis-ci-com > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:01 AM Chesnay Schepler < > [hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to > an > > > >>> entirely different CI service? > > > >>> > > > >>> If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our > > > >>> project, then > > > >>> this might be something we can do fairly quickly? > > > >>> > > > >>> On 03/07/2019 05:55, Bowen Li wrote: > > > >>> > I responded in the INFRA ticket [1] that I believe they are > > > >>> using a wrong > > > >>> > metric against Flink and the total build time is a completely > > > >>> different > > > >>> > thing than guaranteed build capacity. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > My response: > > > >>> > > > > >>> > "As mentioned above, since I started to pay attention to > > Flink's > > > >>> build > > > >>> > queue a few tens of days ago, I'm in Seattle and I saw no > build > > > >>> was kicking > > > >>> > off in PST daytime in weekdays for Flink. Our teammates in > > China > > > >>> and Europe > > > >>> > have also reported similar observations. So we need to > evaluate > > > >>> how the > > > >>> > large total build time came from - if 1) your number and 2) > our > > > >>> > observations from three locations that cover pretty much a > full > > > >>> day, are > > > >>> > all true, I **guess** one reason can be that - highly likely > > the > > > >>> extra > > > >>> > build time came from weekends when other Apache projects may > be > > > >>> idle and > > > >>> > Flink just drains hard its congested queue. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack > of > > > >>> resources > > > >>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, > > > >>> dedicated** > > > >>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even > if > > > >>> no build is > > > >>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head > > > >>> in PST > > > >>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an > absurd > > > >>> amount of > > > >>> > waiting time. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system > and > > > >>> grants > > > >>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for > > > >>> Flink, that'll > > > >>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack > of > > > >>> resources > > > >>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, > > > >>> dedicated** > > > >>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even > if > > > >>> no build is > > > >>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head > > > >>> in PST > > > >>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an > absurd > > > >>> amount of > > > >>> > waiting time. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system > and > > > >>> grants > > > >>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for > > > >>> Flink, that'll > > > >>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > I feel what's missing in the ASF INFRA's Travis resource pool > > is > > > >>> some level > > > >>> > of build capacity SLAs and certainty" > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Again, I believe there are differences in nature of these two > > > >>> problems, > > > >>> > long build time v.s. lack of dedicated build resource. That's > > > >>> saying, > > > >>> > shortening build time may relieve the situation, and may not. > > > >>> I'm sightly > > > >>> > negative on disabling IT cases for PRs, due to the downside > is > > > >>> that we are > > > >>> > at risk of any potential bugs in PR that UTs doesn't catch, > and > > > >>> may cost a > > > >>> > lot more to fix and if it slows others down or even block > > > >>> others, but am > > > >>> > open to others opinions on it. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > AFAICT from INFRA ticket[1], donating to ASF INFRA won't be > > > >>> feasible to > > > >>> > solve our problem since INFRA's pool is fully shared and they > > > >>> have no > > > >>> > control and finer insights over resource allocation to a > > > >>> specific Apache > > > >>> > project. As mentioned in [1], Apache Arrow is moving away > from > > > >>> ASF INFRA > > > >>> > Travis pool (they are actually surprised Flink hasn't plan to > > do > > > >>> so). I > > > >>> > know that Spark is on its own build infra. If we all agree > that > > > >>> funding our > > > >>> > own build infra, I'd be glad to help investigate any > potential > > > >>> options > > > >>> > after releasing 1.9 since I'm super busy with 1.9 now. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:46 AM Chesnay Schepler > > > >>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > > >>> >> As a short-term stopgap, since we can assume this issue to > > > >>> become much > > > >>> >> worse in the following days/weeks, we could disable IT cases > > in > > > >>> PRs and > > > >>> >> only run them on master. > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> On 02/07/2019 12:03, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > > > >>> >>> People really have to stop thinking that just because > > > >>> something works > > > >>> >>> for us it is also a good solution. > > > >>> >>> Also, please remember that our builds run for 2h from start > > to > > > >>> finish, > > > >>> >>> and not the 14 _minutes_ it takes for zeppelin. > > > >>> >>> We are dealing with an entirely different scale here, both > in > > > >>> terms of > > > >>> >>> build times and number of builds. > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> In this very thread people have been complaining about long > > > >>> queue > > > >>> >>> times for their builds. Surprise, other Apache projects > have > > > >>> been > > > >>> >>> suffering the very same thing due to us not controlling our > > > >>> build > > > >>> >>> times. While switching services (be it Jenkins, CircleCI or > > > >>> whatever) > > > >>> >>> will possibly work for us (and these options are actually > > > >>> attractive, > > > >>> >>> like CircleCI's proper support for build artifacts), it > will > > > >>> also > > > >>> >>> result in us likely negatively affecting other projects in > > > >>> significant > > > >>> >>> ways. > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> Sure, the Jenkins setup has a good user experience for us, > at > > > >>> the cost > > > >>> >>> of blocking Jenkins workers for a _lot_ of time. Right now > we > > > >>> have 25 > > > >>> >>> PR's in our queue; that's possibly 50h we'd consume of > > Jenkins > > > >>> >>> resources, and the European contributors haven't even > really > > > >>> started yet. > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> FYI, the latest INFRA response from INFRA-18533: > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> "Our rough metrics shows that Flink used over 5800 hours of > > > >>> build time > > > >>> >>> last month. That is equal to EIGHT servers running 24/7 for > > > >>> the ENTIRE > > > >>> >>> MONTH. EIGHT. nonstop. > > > >>> >>> When we discovered this last night, we discussed it some > and > > > >>> are going > > > >>> >>> to tune down Flink to allow only five executors maximum. We > > > >>> cannot > > > >>> >>> allow Flink to consume so much of a Foundation shared > > > >>> resource." > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> So yes, we either > > > >>> >>> a) have to heavily reduce our CI usage or > > > >>> >>> b) fund our own, either maintaining it ourselves or > donating > > > >>> to Apache. > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> On 02/07/2019 05:11, Bowen Li wrote: > > > >>> >>>> By looking at the git history of the Jenkins script, its > > core > > > >>> part > > > >>> >>>> was finished in March 2017 (and only two minor update in > > > >>> 2017/2018), > > > >>> >>>> so it's been running for over two years now and feels like > > > >>> Zepplin > > > >>> >>>> community has been quite happy with it. @Jeff Zhang > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> can > you > > > >>> share your insights and user > > > >>> >>>> experience with the Jenkins+Travis approach? > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> Things like: > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> - has the approach completely solved the resource capacity > > > >>> problem > > > >>> >>>> for Zepplin community? is Zepplin community happy with the > > > >>> result? > > > >>> >>>> - is the whole configuration chain stable (e.g. uptime) > > > >>> enough? > > > >>> >>>> - how often do you need to maintain the Jenkins infra? how > > > >>> many > > > >>> >>>> people are usually involved in maintenance and bug-fixes? > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> The downside of this approach seems mostly to be on the > > > >>> maintenance > > > >>> >>>> to me - maintain the script and Jenkins infra. > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> ** Having Our Own Travis-CI.com Account ** > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> Another alternative I've been thinking of is to have our > own > > > >>> >>>> travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> < > http://travis-ci.com> > > > >>> account with paid dedicated > > > >>> >>>> resources. Note travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> > > > >>> <http://travis-ci.org> is the free > > > >>> >>>> version and travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> > > > >>> <http://travis-ci.com> is the commercial > > > >>> >>>> version. We currently use a shared resource pool managed > by > > > >>> ASK INFRA > > > >>> >>>> team on travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> > > > >>> <http://travis-ci.org>, but we have no control > > > >>> >>>> over it - we can't see how it's configured, how much > > > >>> resources are > > > >>> >>>> available, how resources are allocated among Apache > > projects, > > > >>> etc. > > > >>> >>>> The nice thing about having an account on travis-ci.com > > > >>> <http://travis-ci.com> > > > >>> >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> are: > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> - relatively low cost with much better resource guarantee > > > >>> than what > > > >>> >>>> we currently have [1]: $249/month with 5 dedicated > > > >>> concurrency, > > > >>> >>>> $489/month with 10 concurrency > > > >>> >>>> - low maintenance work compared to using Jenkins > > > >>> >>>> - (potentially) no migration cost according to Travis's > doc > > > >>> [2] > > > >>> >>>> (pending verification) > > > >>> >>>> - full control over the build capacity/configuration > > > >>> compared to > > > >>> >>>> using ASF INFRA's pool > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> I'd be surprised if we as such a vibrant community cannot > > > >>> find and > > > >>> >>>> fund $249*12=$2988 a year in exchange for a much better > > > >>> developer > > > >>> >>>> experience and much higher productivity. > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> [1] https://travis-ci.com/plans > > > >>> >>>> [2] > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration > > > >>> > > > >>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM Chesnay Schepler > > > >>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> So yes, the Jenkins job keeps pulling the state from > > > >>> Travis until it > > > >>> >>>> finishes. > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> Note sure I'm comfortable with the idea of using > > Jenkins > > > >>> workers > > > >>> >>>> just to > > > >>> >>>> idle for a several hours. > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> On 29/06/2019 14:56, Jeff Zhang wrote: > > > >>> >>>> > Here's what zeppelin community did, we make a > python > > > >>> script to > > > >>> >>>> check the > > > >>> >>>> > build status of pull request. > > > >>> >>>> > Here's script: > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/travis_check.py > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > And this is the script we used in Jenkins build > job. > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > if [ -f "travis_check.py" ]; then > > > >>> >>>> > git log -n 1 > > > >>> >>>> > STATUS=$(curl -s $BUILD_URL | grep -e "GitHub > pull > > > >>> >>>> request.*from.*" | sed > > > >>> >>>> > 's/.*GitHub pull request <a > > > >>> >>>> > > href=\"\(https[^"]*\).*from[^"]*.\(https[^"]*\).*/\1 > > > >>> \2/g') > > > >>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(echo $STATUS | sed > 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') > > > >>> >>>> > PR=$(echo $STATUS | awk '{print $1}' | sed > > > >>> >>>> 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') > > > >>> >>>> > #COMMIT=$(git log -n 1 | grep "^Merge:" | awk > > > >>> '{print $3}') > > > >>> >>>> > #if [ -z $COMMIT ]; then > > > >>> >>>> > # COMMIT=$(curl -s > > > >>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR > > > >>> >>>> > | grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" > | > > > >>> tr '\n' ' ' > > > >>> >>>> | sed > > > >>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = > '\n' > > | > > > >>> grep -v > > > >>> >>>> "apache:" | > > > >>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') > > > >>> >>>> > #fi > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > # get commit hash from PR > > > >>> >>>> > COMMIT=$(curl -s > > > >>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR | > > > >>> >>>> > grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | > tr > > > >>> '\n' ' ' > > > >>> >>>> | sed > > > >>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = > '\n' > > | > > > >>> grep -v > > > >>> >>>> "apache:" | > > > >>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') > > > >>> >>>> > sleep 30 # sleep few moment to wait travis > starts > > > >>> the build > > > >>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 > > > >>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || > > > >>> RET_CODE=$? > > > >>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # try with > repository > > > >>> name when > > > >>> >>>> travis-ci is > > > >>> >>>> > not available in the account > > > >>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 > > > >>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(curl -s > > > >>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR > > > >>> >>>> > | grep '"full_name":' | grep -v "apache/zeppelin" | > > sed > > > >>> >>>> > 's/.*[:][^"]*["]\([^/]*\).*/\1/g') > > > >>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || > > > >>> RET_CODE=$? > > > >>> >>>> > fi > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # fail with can't > > find > > > >>> build > > > >>> >>>> information in > > > >>> >>>> > the travis > > > >>> >>>> > set +x > > > >>> >>>> > echo > > > >>> "-----------------------------------------------------" > > > >>> >>>> > echo "Looks like travis-ci is not configured > for > > > >>> your fork." > > > >>> >>>> > echo "Please setup by swich on 'zeppelin' > > > >>> repository at > > > >>> >>>> > https://travis-ci.org/profile and travis-ci." > > > >>> >>>> > echo "And then make sure 'Build branch > updates' > > > >>> option is > > > >>> >>>> enabled in > > > >>> >>>> > the settings > > > >>> https://travis-ci.org/${AUTHOR}/zeppelin/settings > > > >>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings> > > > >>> >>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings>." > > > >>> >>>> > echo "" > > > >>> >>>> > echo "To trigger CI after setup, you will need > > > >>> ammend your > > > >>> >>>> last commit > > > >>> >>>> > with" > > > >>> >>>> > echo "git commit --amend" > > > >>> >>>> > echo "git push your-remote HEAD --force" > > > >>> >>>> > echo "" > > > >>> >>>> > echo "See > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > > > > http://zeppelin.apache.org/contribution/contributions.html#continuous-integration > > > >>> >>>> > ." > > > >>> >>>> > fi > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > exit $RET_CODE > > > >>> >>>> > else > > > >>> >>>> > set +x > > > >>> >>>> > echo "travis_check.py does not exists" > > > >>> >>>> > exit 1 > > > >>> >>>> > fi > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto: > [hidden email] > > >>> > > > >>> 于2019年6月29日周六 下午3:17写道： > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> >> Does this imply that a Jenkins job is active as > long > > > >>> as the > > > >>> >>>> Travis build > > > >>> >>>> >> runs? > > > >>> >>>> >> > > > >>> >>>> >> On 26/06/2019 21:28, Bowen Li wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>> Hi, > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> @Dawid, I think the "long test running" as I > > > >>> mentioned in the > > > >>> >>>> first > > > >>> >>>> >> email, > > > >>> >>>> >>> also as you guys said, belongs to "a big effort > > > >>> which is much > > > >>> >>>> harder to > > > >>> >>>> >>> accomplish in a short period of time and may > > deserve > > > >>> its own > > > >>> >>>> separate > > > >>> >>>> >>> discussion". Thus I didn't include it in what we > > can > > > >>> do in a > > > >>> >>>> foreseeable > > > >>> >>>> >>> short term. > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> Besides, I don't think that's the ultimate reason > > > >>> for lack of > > > >>> >>>> build > > > >>> >>>> >>> resources. Even if the build is shortened to > > > >>> something like > > > >>> >>>> 2h, the > > > >>> >>>> >>> problems of no build machine works about 6 or > more > > > >>> hours in > > > >>> >>>> PST daytime > > > >>> >>>> >>> that I described will still happen, because no > > > >>> machine from > > > >>> >>>> ASF INFRA's > > > >>> >>>> >>> pool is allocated to Flink. As I have paid close > > > >>> attention to > > > >>> >>>> the build > > > >>> >>>> >>> queue in the past few weekdays, it's a pretty > clear > > > >>> pattern now. > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> **The ultimate root cause** for that is - we > don't > > > >>> have any > > > >>> >>>> **dedicated** > > > >>> >>>> >>> build resources that we can stably rely on. I'm > > > >>> actually ok to > > > >>> >>>> wait for a > > > >>> >>>> >>> long time if there are build requests running, it > > > >>> means at > > > >>> >>>> least we are > > > >>> >>>> >>> making progress. But I'm not ok with no build > > > >>> resource. A > > > >>> >>>> better place I > > > >>> >>>> >>> think we should aim at in short term is to always > > > >>> have at > > > >>> >>>> least a central > > > >>> >>>> >>> pool (can be 3 or 5) of machines dedicated to > build > > > >>> Flink at > > > >>> >>>> any time, or > > > >>> >>>> >>> maybe use users resources. > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> @Chesnay @Robert I synced with Jeff offline that > > > >>> Zeppelin > > > >>> >>>> community is > > > >>> >>>> >>> using a Jenkins job to automatically build on > > users' > > > >>> travis > > > >>> >>>> account and > > > >>> >>>> >>> link the result back to github PR. I guess the > > > >>> Jenkins job > > > >>> >>>> would fetch > > > >>> >>>> >>> latest upstream master and build the PR against > it. > > > >>> Jeff has > > > >>> >>>> filed > > > >>> >>>> >> tickets > > > >>> >>>> >>> to learn and get access to the Jenkins infra. > It'll > > > >>> better to > > > >>> >>>> fully > > > >>> >>>> >>> understand it first before judging this approach. > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> I also heard good things about CircleCI, and ASF > > > >>> INFRA seems > > > >>> >>>> to have a > > > >>> >>>> >> pool > > > >>> >>>> >>> of build capacity there too. Can be an > alternative > > > >>> to consider. > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:44 AM Dawid > Wysakowicz < > > > >>> >>>> >> [hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>> Sorry to jump in late, but I think Bowen missed > > the > > > >>> most > > > >>> >>>> important point > > > >>> >>>> >>>> from Chesnay's previous message in the summary. > > The > > > >>> ultimate > > > >>> >>>> reason for > > > >>> >>>> >>>> all the problems is that the tests take close > to 2 > > > >>> hours to > > > >>> >>>> run already. > > > >>> >>>> >>>> I fully support this claim: "Unless people start > > > >>> caring about > > > >>> >>>> test times > > > >>> >>>> >>>> before adding them, this issue cannot be solved" > > > >>> >>>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>> This is also another reason why using user's > > Travis > > > >>> account > > > >>> >>>> won't help. > > > >>> >>>> >>>> Every few weeks we reach the user's time limit > for > > > >>> a single > > > >>> >>>> profile. > > > >>> >>>> >>>> This makes the user's builds simply fail, until > we > > > >>> either > > > >>> >>>> properly > > > >>> >>>> >>>> decrease the time the tests take (which I am not > > > >>> sure we ever > > > >>> >>>> did) or > > > >>> >>>> >>>> postpone the problem by splitting into more > > > >>> profiles. (Note > > > >>> >>>> that the ASF > > > >>> >>>> >>>> Travis account has higher time limits) > > > >>> >>>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>> Best, > > > >>> >>>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>> Dawid > > > >>> >>>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>> On 26/06/2019 09:36, Robert Metzger wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> Do we know if using "the best" available > hardware > > > >>> would > > > >>> >>>> improve the > > > >>> >>>> >> build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> times? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> Imagine we would run the build on machines with > > > >>> plenty of > > > >>> >>>> main memory > > > >>> >>>> >> to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> mount everything to ramdisk + the latest CPU > > > >>> architecture? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> Throwing hardware at the problem could help > > reduce > > > >>> the time > > > >>> >>>> of an > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> individual build, and using our own > > infrastructure > > > >>> would > > > >>> >>>> remove our > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> dependency on Apache's Travis account (with the > > > >>> obvious > > > >>> >>>> downside of > > > >>> >>>> >>>> having > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> to maintain the infrastructure) > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> We could use an open source travis alternative, > > to > > > >>> have a > > > >>> >>>> similar > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> experience and make the migration easy. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:34 AM Chesnay > Schepler > > > >>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> >From what I gathered, there's no special > > > >>> sauce that the > > > >>> >>>> Zeppelin > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> project uses which actually integrates a users > > > >>> Travis > > > >>> >>>> account into the > > > >>> >>>> >>>> PR. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> They just disabled Travis for PRs. And that's > > > >>> kind of it. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> Naturally we can do this (duh) and safe the > ASF > > a > > > >>> fair > > > >>> >>>> amount of > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> resources, but there are downsides: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> The discoverability of the Travis check takes > a > > > >>> nose-dive. > > > >>> >>>> Either we > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> require every contributor to always, an every > > > >>> commit, also > > > >>> >>>> post a > > > >>> >>>> >> Travis > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> build, or we have the reviewer sift through > the > > > >>> >>>> contributors account > > > >>> >>>> >> to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> find it. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> This is rather cumbersome. Additionally, it's > > > >>> also not > > > >>> >>>> equivalent to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> having a PR build. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> A normal branch build takes a branch as is and > > > >>> tests it. A > > > >>> >>>> PR build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> merges the branch into master, and then runs > it. > > > >>> (Fun fact: > > > >>> >>>> This is > > > >>> >>>> >> why > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> a PR without merge conflicts is not being run > on > > > >>> Travis.) > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> And ultimately, everyone can already make use > > > >>> of this > > > >>> >>>> approach anyway. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> On 25/06/2019 08:02, Jark Wu wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jeff, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing the Zeppelin approach. I > > > >>> think it's a > > > >>> >>>> good idea to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> leverage user's travis account. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> In this way, we can have almost unlimited > > > >>> concurrent build > > > >>> >>>> jobs and > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> developers can restart build by themselves > > > >>> (currently only > > > >>> >>>> committers > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> can restart PR's build). > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> But I'm still not very clear how to integrate > > > >>> user's > > > >>> >>>> travis build > > > >>> >>>> >> into > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> the Flink pull request's build automatically. > > > >>> Can you > > > >>> >>>> explain more in > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> detail? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Another question: does travis only build > > > >>> branches for user > > > >>> >>>> account? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> My concern is that builds for PRs will rebase > > > >>> user's > > > >>> >>>> commits against > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> current master branch. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> This will help us to find problems before > > > >>> merge. Builds > > > >>> >>>> for branches > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> will lose the impact of new commits in > master. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> How does Zeppelin solve this problem? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again for sharing the idea. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Regards, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jark > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:01, Jeff Zhang > > > >>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Folks, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Zeppelin meet this kind of issue before, we > > > >>> solve > > > >>> >>>> it by > > > >>> >>>> >> delegating > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> each > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> one's PR build to his travis account > > > >>> (Everyone can > > > >>> >>>> have 5 free > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> slot for > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis build). > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Apache account travis build is only > triggered > > > >>> when > > > >>> >>>> PR is merged. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Kurt Young <[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> 于2019年6月25日周二 上午10:16写道： > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > (Forgot to cc George) > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Best, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Kurt > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kurt > Young > > > >>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > > > >>> >>>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Hi Bowen, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Thanks for bringing this up. We > > > >>> actually have > > > >>> >>>> discussed > > > >>> >>>> >> about > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> this, and I > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > think Till and George have > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > already spend sometime investigating > > > >>> it. I have > > > >>> >>>> cced both of > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> them, and > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > maybe they can share > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > their findings. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Best, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Kurt > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:08 AM Jark Wu > > > >>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > > > >>> >>>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Hi Bowen, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Thanks for bringing this. We also > > > >>> suffered from > > > >>> >>>> the long > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> build time. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I agree that we should focus on > > > >>> solving build > > > >>> >>>> capacity > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> problem in the > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> thread. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> My observation is there is only one > > > >>> build is > > > >>> >>>> running, all > > > >>> >>>> >> the > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> others > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> (other > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> PRs, master) are pending. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> The pricing plan[1] of travis shows > > > >>> it can > > > >>> >>>> support > > > >>> >>>> >> concurrent > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > jobs. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> But I don't know which plan we are > > > >>> using, might > > > >>> >>>> be the free > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan for > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > open > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> source. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I cc-ed Chesnay who may have some > > > >>> experience on > > > >>> >>>> Travis. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Regards, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Jark > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> [1]: https://travis-ci.com/plans > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 08:11, Bowen Li > < > > > >>> >>>> >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > Hi Steven, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > I think you may not read what I > > > >>> wrote. The > > > >>> >>>> discussion is > > > >>> >>>> >>>> about > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > "unstable > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > build **capacity**", in another word > > > >>> >>>> "unstable / lack of > > > >>> >>>> >>>> build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> resources", > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > not "unstable build". > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:40 PM > > > >>> Steven Wu > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > long and sometimes unstable build > is > > > >>> >>>> definitely a pain > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> point. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > I suspect the build failure here in > > > >>> >>>> >> flink-connector-kafka > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> is not > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> related > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > my change. but there is no easy > > > >>> re-run the > > > >>> >>>> build on > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis UI. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > search showed a trick of > > > >>> close-and-open the > > > >>> >>>> PR will > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> trigger rebuild. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> but > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that could add noises to the PR > > > >>> activities. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/545555519 > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > travis-ci for my personal repo > > > >>> often failed > > > >>> >>>> with > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> exceeding time > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > limit > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > after > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 4+ hours. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > The job exceeded the maximum time > > > >>> limit for > > > >>> >>>> jobs, and > > > >>> >>>> >> has > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> been > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > terminated. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:15 PM > > > >>> Bowen Li > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto: > > [hidden email]> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/549681530 > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> This build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > request > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > has > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > been sitting at **HEAD of the > > > >>> queue** > > > >>> >>>> since I first > > > >>> >>>> >> saw > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> it at PST > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 10:30am > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > (not sure how long it's been > > > >>> there before > > > >>> >>>> 10:30am). > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> It's PST > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > 4:12pm > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> now > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > and > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > it hasn't started yet. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:48 PM > > > >>> Bowen Li > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > > > >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto: > > [hidden email]> > > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> wrote: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > Hi devs, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I've been experiencing the pain > > > >>> >>>> resulting from lack > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> of stable > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > capacity on Travis for Flink > > > >>> PRs [1]. > > > >>> >>>> >> Specifically, I > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> noticed > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> often > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > no > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build in the queue is making > any > > > >>> >>>> progress for > > > >>> >>>> >> hours, > > > >>> >>>> >>>> and > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > suddenly > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> 5 > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > or > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 6 > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > builds kick off all together > > > >>> after the > > > >>> >>>> long pause. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> I'm at PST > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > (UTC-08) > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > time > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > zone, and I've seen pause can > > > >>> be as > > > >>> >>>> long as 6 hours > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> from PST 9am > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 3pm > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > (let alone the time needed to > > > >>> drain the > > > >>> >>>> queue > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> afterwards). > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I think this has greatly > > > >>> impacted our > > > >>> >>>> productivity. > > > >>> >>>> >>>> I've > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> experienced > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > PRs submitted in the early > > > >>> morning of > > > >>> >>>> PST time zone > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> won't finish > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > their > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build until late night of the > > > >>> same day. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > So my questions are: > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - Has anyone else experienced > > > >>> the same > > > >>> >>>> problem or > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> have similar > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > observation > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > on TravisCI? (I suspect it > > > >>> has things > > > >>> >>>> to do with > > > >>> >>>> >> time > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> zone) > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - What pricing plan of > > > >>> TravisCI is > > > >>> >>>> Flink currently > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> using? Is it > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> the > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > free > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > plan for open source > > > >>> projects? What > > > >>> >>>> are the > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> guaranteed build > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> capacity > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > of > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > the current plan? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - If the current pricing plan > > > >>> (either > > > >>> >>>> free or paid) > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>> can't > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > provide > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > stable > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build capacity, can we > > > >>> upgrade to a > > > >>> >>>> higher priced > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan with > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > larger > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > and > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > more > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > stable build capacity? > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > BTW, another factor that > > > >>> contribute to > > > >>> >>>> the > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> productivity problem > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > is > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > that > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > our build is slow - we run > > > >>> full build > > > >>> >>>> for every PR > > > >>> >>>> >>>> and a > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> successful > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > full > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build takes ~5h. We > > > >>> definitely have > > > >>> >>>> more options to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> solve it, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > for > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > instance, > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > modularize the build graphs > > > >>> and reuse > > > >>> >>>> artifacts > > > >>> >>>> >> from > > > >>> >>>> >>>> the > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > previous > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > build. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > But I think that can be a big > > > >>> effort > > > >>> >>>> which is much > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> harder to > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > accomplish > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > in > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > a short period of time and > > > >>> may deserve > > > >>> >>>> its own > > > >>> >>>> >>>> separate > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> discussion. > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > [1] > > > >>> >>>> >> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/pull_requests > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> -- > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jeff Zhang > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>> >>>> >> > > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
Re: [VOTE] Migrate to sponsored Travis account
|
|
In reply to this post by Chesnay Schepler-3
I have a prototype ready and will now commence a real world test. I will
point it apache/flink and mirror it into a ververica controlled repo to start Travis runs. Once the run is finished the bot will comment on the PR with the results. This runs in addition to our existing CI. On 04/07/2019 14:06, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > Note that the Flinkbot approach isn't that trivial either; we can't > _just_ trigger builds for a branch in the apache repo, but would first > have to clone the branch/pr into a separate repository (that is owned > by the github account that the travis account would be tied to). > > One roadblock after the next showing up... > > On 04/07/2019 11:59, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >> Small update with mostly bad news: >> >> INFRA doesn't know whether it is possible, and referred my to Travis >> support. >> They did point out that it could be problematic in regards to >> read/write permissions for the repository. >> >> From my own findings /so far/ with a test repo/organization, it does >> not appear possible to configure the Travis account used for a >> specific repository. >> >> So yeah, if we go down this route we may have to pimp the Flinkbot to >> trigger builds through the Travis REST API. >> >> On 04/07/2019 10:46, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >>> I've raised a JIRA >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18703>with INFRA to >>> inquire whether it would be possible to switch to a different Travis >>> account, and if so what steps would need to be taken. >>> We need a proper confirmation from INFRA since we are not in full >>> control of the flink repository (for example, we cannot access the >>> settings page). >>> >>> If this is indeed possible, Ververica is willing sponsor a Travis >>> account for the Flink project. >>> This would provide us with more than enough resources than we need. >>> >>> Since this makes the project more reliant on resources provided by >>> external companies I would like to vote on this. >>> >>> Please vote on this proposal, as follows: >>> [ ] +1, Approve the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis >>> account, provided that INFRA approves >>> [ ] -1, Do not approach the migration to a Ververica-sponsored >>> Travis account >>> >>> The vote will be open for at least 24h, and until we have >>> confirmation from INFRA. The voting period may be shorter than the >>> usual 3 days since our current is effectively not working. >>> >>> On 04/07/2019 06:51, Bowen Li wrote: >>>> Re: > Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to >>>> an entirely different CI service? >>>> >>>> I reached out to Wes and Krisztián from Apache Arrow PMC. They are >>>> currently moving away from ASF's Travis to their own in-house metal >>>> machines at [1] with custom CI application at [2]. They've seen >>>> significant improvement w.r.t both much higher performance and >>>> basically no resource waiting time, "night-and-day" difference >>>> quoting Wes. >>>> >>>> Re: > If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our >>>> project, then this might be something we can do fairly quickly? >>>> >>>> I believe so, according to [3] and [4] >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] https://ci.ursalabs.org/ <https://ci.ursalabs.org/#/> >>>> [2] https://github.com/ursa-labs/ursabot >>>> [3] >>>> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration >>>> >>>> [4] >>>> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-on-travis-ci-com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:01 AM Chesnay Schepler >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to an >>>> entirely different CI service? >>>> >>>> If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our >>>> project, then >>>> this might be something we can do fairly quickly? >>>> >>>> On 03/07/2019 05:55, Bowen Li wrote: >>>> > I responded in the INFRA ticket [1] that I believe they are >>>> using a wrong >>>> > metric against Flink and the total build time is a completely >>>> different >>>> > thing than guaranteed build capacity. >>>> > >>>> > My response: >>>> > >>>> > "As mentioned above, since I started to pay attention to Flink's >>>> build >>>> > queue a few tens of days ago, I'm in Seattle and I saw no build >>>> was kicking >>>> > off in PST daytime in weekdays for Flink. Our teammates in China >>>> and Europe >>>> > have also reported similar observations. So we need to evaluate >>>> how the >>>> > large total build time came from - if 1) your number and 2) our >>>> > observations from three locations that cover pretty much a full >>>> day, are >>>> > all true, I **guess** one reason can be that - highly likely the >>>> extra >>>> > build time came from weekends when other Apache projects may be >>>> idle and >>>> > Flink just drains hard its congested queue. >>>> > >>>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack of >>>> resources >>>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, >>>> dedicated** >>>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even if >>>> no build is >>>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head >>>> in PST >>>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an absurd >>>> amount of >>>> > waiting time. >>>> > >>>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system and >>>> grants >>>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for >>>> Flink, that'll >>>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. >>>> > >>>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack of >>>> resources >>>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, >>>> dedicated** >>>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even if >>>> no build is >>>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head >>>> in PST >>>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an absurd >>>> amount of >>>> > waiting time. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system and >>>> grants >>>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for >>>> Flink, that'll >>>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. >>>> > >>>> > I feel what's missing in the ASF INFRA's Travis resource pool is >>>> some level >>>> > of build capacity SLAs and certainty" >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Again, I believe there are differences in nature of these two >>>> problems, >>>> > long build time v.s. lack of dedicated build resource. That's >>>> saying, >>>> > shortening build time may relieve the situation, and may not. >>>> I'm sightly >>>> > negative on disabling IT cases for PRs, due to the downside is >>>> that we are >>>> > at risk of any potential bugs in PR that UTs doesn't catch, and >>>> may cost a >>>> > lot more to fix and if it slows others down or even block >>>> others, but am >>>> > open to others opinions on it. >>>> > >>>> > AFAICT from INFRA ticket[1], donating to ASF INFRA won't be >>>> feasible to >>>> > solve our problem since INFRA's pool is fully shared and they >>>> have no >>>> > control and finer insights over resource allocation to a >>>> specific Apache >>>> > project. As mentioned in [1], Apache Arrow is moving away from >>>> ASF INFRA >>>> > Travis pool (they are actually surprised Flink hasn't plan to do >>>> so). I >>>> > know that Spark is on its own build infra. If we all agree that >>>> funding our >>>> > own build infra, I'd be glad to help investigate any potential >>>> options >>>> > after releasing 1.9 since I'm super busy with 1.9 now. >>>> > >>>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:46 AM Chesnay Schepler >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> As a short-term stopgap, since we can assume this issue to >>>> become much >>>> >> worse in the following days/weeks, we could disable IT cases in >>>> PRs and >>>> >> only run them on master. >>>> >> >>>> >> On 02/07/2019 12:03, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >>>> >>> People really have to stop thinking that just because >>>> something works >>>> >>> for us it is also a good solution. >>>> >>> Also, please remember that our builds run for 2h from start to >>>> finish, >>>> >>> and not the 14 _minutes_ it takes for zeppelin. >>>> >>> We are dealing with an entirely different scale here, both in >>>> terms of >>>> >>> build times and number of builds. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> In this very thread people have been complaining about long >>>> queue >>>> >>> times for their builds. Surprise, other Apache projects >>>> have been >>>> >>> suffering the very same thing due to us not controlling our >>>> build >>>> >>> times. While switching services (be it Jenkins, CircleCI or >>>> whatever) >>>> >>> will possibly work for us (and these options are actually >>>> attractive, >>>> >>> like CircleCI's proper support for build artifacts), it >>>> will also >>>> >>> result in us likely negatively affecting other projects in >>>> significant >>>> >>> ways. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Sure, the Jenkins setup has a good user experience for us, at >>>> the cost >>>> >>> of blocking Jenkins workers for a _lot_ of time. Right now we >>>> have 25 >>>> >>> PR's in our queue; that's possibly 50h we'd consume of Jenkins >>>> >>> resources, and the European contributors haven't even really >>>> started yet. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> FYI, the latest INFRA response from INFRA-18533: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> "Our rough metrics shows that Flink used over 5800 hours of >>>> build time >>>> >>> last month. That is equal to EIGHT servers running 24/7 for >>>> the ENTIRE >>>> >>> MONTH. EIGHT. nonstop. >>>> >>> When we discovered this last night, we discussed it some and >>>> are going >>>> >>> to tune down Flink to allow only five executors maximum. We >>>> cannot >>>> >>> allow Flink to consume so much of a Foundation shared >>>> resource." >>>> >>> >>>> >>> So yes, we either >>>> >>> a) have to heavily reduce our CI usage or >>>> >>> b) fund our own, either maintaining it ourselves or donating >>>> to Apache. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On 02/07/2019 05:11, Bowen Li wrote: >>>> >>>> By looking at the git history of the Jenkins script, its core >>>> part >>>> >>>> was finished in March 2017 (and only two minor update in >>>> 2017/2018), >>>> >>>> so it's been running for over two years now and feels like >>>> Zepplin >>>> >>>> community has been quite happy with it. @Jeff Zhang >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> can you >>>> share your insights and user >>>> >>>> experience with the Jenkins+Travis approach? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Things like: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - has the approach completely solved the resource capacity >>>> problem >>>> >>>> for Zepplin community? is Zepplin community happy with the >>>> result? >>>> >>>> - is the whole configuration chain stable (e.g. uptime) >>>> enough? >>>> >>>> - how often do you need to maintain the Jenkins infra? how >>>> many >>>> >>>> people are usually involved in maintenance and bug-fixes? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The downside of this approach seems mostly to be on the >>>> maintenance >>>> >>>> to me - maintain the script and Jenkins infra. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ** Having Our Own Travis-CI.com Account ** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Another alternative I've been thinking of is to have our own >>>> >>>> travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> <http://travis-ci.com> >>>> account with paid dedicated >>>> >>>> resources. Note travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> >>>> <http://travis-ci.org> is the free >>>> >>>> version and travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> is the commercial >>>> >>>> version. We currently use a shared resource pool managed by >>>> ASK INFRA >>>> >>>> team on travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> >>>> <http://travis-ci.org>, but we have no control >>>> >>>> over it - we can't see how it's configured, how much >>>> resources are >>>> >>>> available, how resources are allocated among Apache projects, >>>> etc. >>>> >>>> The nice thing about having an account on travis-ci.com >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> >>>> >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> are: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - relatively low cost with much better resource guarantee >>>> than what >>>> >>>> we currently have [1]: $249/month with 5 dedicated >>>> concurrency, >>>> >>>> $489/month with 10 concurrency >>>> >>>> - low maintenance work compared to using Jenkins >>>> >>>> - (potentially) no migration cost according to Travis's >>>> doc [2] >>>> >>>> (pending verification) >>>> >>>> - full control over the build capacity/configuration >>>> compared to >>>> >>>> using ASF INFRA's pool >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'd be surprised if we as such a vibrant community cannot >>>> find and >>>> >>>> fund $249*12=$2988 a year in exchange for a much better >>>> developer >>>> >>>> experience and much higher productivity. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] https://travis-ci.com/plans >>>> >>>> [2] >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM Chesnay Schepler >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So yes, the Jenkins job keeps pulling the state from >>>> Travis until it >>>> >>>> finishes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Note sure I'm comfortable with the idea of using Jenkins >>>> workers >>>> >>>> just to >>>> >>>> idle for a several hours. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29/06/2019 14:56, Jeff Zhang wrote: >>>> >>>> > Here's what zeppelin community did, we make a python >>>> script to >>>> >>>> check the >>>> >>>> > build status of pull request. >>>> >>>> > Here's script: >>>> >>>> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/travis_check.py >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > And this is the script we used in Jenkins build job. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > if [ -f "travis_check.py" ]; then >>>> >>>> > git log -n 1 >>>> >>>> > STATUS=$(curl -s $BUILD_URL | grep -e "GitHub pull >>>> >>>> request.*from.*" | sed >>>> >>>> > 's/.*GitHub pull request <a >>>> >>>> > href=\"\(https[^"]*\).*from[^"]*.\(https[^"]*\).*/\1 >>>> \2/g') >>>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(echo $STATUS | sed 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') >>>> >>>> > PR=$(echo $STATUS | awk '{print $1}' | sed >>>> >>>> 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') >>>> >>>> > #COMMIT=$(git log -n 1 | grep "^Merge:" | awk >>>> '{print $3}') >>>> >>>> > #if [ -z $COMMIT ]; then >>>> >>>> > # COMMIT=$(curl -s >>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR >>>> >>>> > | grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | >>>> tr '\n' ' ' >>>> >>>> | sed >>>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = '\n' | >>>> grep -v >>>> >>>> "apache:" | >>>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') >>>> >>>> > #fi >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > # get commit hash from PR >>>> >>>> > COMMIT=$(curl -s >>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR | >>>> >>>> > grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | tr >>>> '\n' ' ' >>>> >>>> | sed >>>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = '\n' | >>>> grep -v >>>> >>>> "apache:" | >>>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') >>>> >>>> > sleep 30 # sleep few moment to wait travis starts >>>> the build >>>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 >>>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || >>>> RET_CODE=$? >>>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # try with repository >>>> name when >>>> >>>> travis-ci is >>>> >>>> > not available in the account >>>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 >>>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(curl -s >>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR >>>> >>>> > | grep '"full_name":' | grep -v "apache/zeppelin" | >>>> sed >>>> >>>> > 's/.*[:][^"]*["]\([^/]*\).*/\1/g') >>>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || >>>> RET_CODE=$? >>>> >>>> > fi >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # fail with can't find >>>> build >>>> >>>> information in >>>> >>>> > the travis >>>> >>>> > set +x >>>> >>>> > echo >>>> "-----------------------------------------------------" >>>> >>>> > echo "Looks like travis-ci is not configured for >>>> your fork." >>>> >>>> > echo "Please setup by swich on 'zeppelin' >>>> repository at >>>> >>>> > https://travis-ci.org/profile and travis-ci." >>>> >>>> > echo "And then make sure 'Build branch updates' >>>> option is >>>> >>>> enabled in >>>> >>>> > the settings >>>> https://travis-ci.org/${AUTHOR}/zeppelin/settings >>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings> >>>> >>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings>." >>>> >>>> > echo "" >>>> >>>> > echo "To trigger CI after setup, you will need >>>> ammend your >>>> >>>> last commit >>>> >>>> > with" >>>> >>>> > echo "git commit --amend" >>>> >>>> > echo "git push your-remote HEAD --force" >>>> >>>> > echo "" >>>> >>>> > echo "See >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> http://zeppelin.apache.org/contribution/contributions.html#continuous-integration >>>> >>>> >>>> > ." >>>> >>>> > fi >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > exit $RET_CODE >>>> >>>> > else >>>> >>>> > set +x >>>> >>>> > echo "travis_check.py does not exists" >>>> >>>> > exit 1 >>>> >>>> > fi >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>>> 于2019年6月29日周六 下午3:17写道： >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >> Does this imply that a Jenkins job is active as long >>>> as the >>>> >>>> Travis build >>>> >>>> >> runs? >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> On 26/06/2019 21:28, Bowen Li wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> Hi, >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> @Dawid, I think the "long test running" as I >>>> mentioned in the >>>> >>>> first >>>> >>>> >> email, >>>> >>>> >>> also as you guys said, belongs to "a big effort >>>> which is much >>>> >>>> harder to >>>> >>>> >>> accomplish in a short period of time and may deserve >>>> its own >>>> >>>> separate >>>> >>>> >>> discussion". Thus I didn't include it in what we can >>>> do in a >>>> >>>> foreseeable >>>> >>>> >>> short term. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> Besides, I don't think that's the ultimate reason >>>> for lack of >>>> >>>> build >>>> >>>> >>> resources. Even if the build is shortened to >>>> something like >>>> >>>> 2h, the >>>> >>>> >>> problems of no build machine works about 6 or more >>>> hours in >>>> >>>> PST daytime >>>> >>>> >>> that I described will still happen, because no >>>> machine from >>>> >>>> ASF INFRA's >>>> >>>> >>> pool is allocated to Flink. As I have paid close >>>> attention to >>>> >>>> the build >>>> >>>> >>> queue in the past few weekdays, it's a pretty clear >>>> pattern now. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> **The ultimate root cause** for that is - we don't >>>> have any >>>> >>>> **dedicated** >>>> >>>> >>> build resources that we can stably rely on. I'm >>>> actually ok to >>>> >>>> wait for a >>>> >>>> >>> long time if there are build requests running, it >>>> means at >>>> >>>> least we are >>>> >>>> >>> making progress. But I'm not ok with no build >>>> resource. A >>>> >>>> better place I >>>> >>>> >>> think we should aim at in short term is to always >>>> have at >>>> >>>> least a central >>>> >>>> >>> pool (can be 3 or 5) of machines dedicated to build >>>> Flink at >>>> >>>> any time, or >>>> >>>> >>> maybe use users resources. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> @Chesnay @Robert I synced with Jeff offline that >>>> Zeppelin >>>> >>>> community is >>>> >>>> >>> using a Jenkins job to automatically build on users' >>>> travis >>>> >>>> account and >>>> >>>> >>> link the result back to github PR. I guess the >>>> Jenkins job >>>> >>>> would fetch >>>> >>>> >>> latest upstream master and build the PR against it. >>>> Jeff has >>>> >>>> filed >>>> >>>> >> tickets >>>> >>>> >>> to learn and get access to the Jenkins infra. It'll >>>> better to >>>> >>>> fully >>>> >>>> >>> understand it first before judging this approach. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> I also heard good things about CircleCI, and ASF >>>> INFRA seems >>>> >>>> to have a >>>> >>>> >> pool >>>> >>>> >>> of build capacity there too. Can be an alternative >>>> to consider. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:44 AM Dawid Wysakowicz < >>>> >>>> >> [hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>>> >>>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry to jump in late, but I think Bowen missed the >>>> most >>>> >>>> important point >>>> >>>> >>>> from Chesnay's previous message in the summary. The >>>> ultimate >>>> >>>> reason for >>>> >>>> >>>> all the problems is that the tests take close to 2 >>>> hours to >>>> >>>> run already. >>>> >>>> >>>> I fully support this claim: "Unless people start >>>> caring about >>>> >>>> test times >>>> >>>> >>>> before adding them, this issue cannot be solved" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is also another reason why using user's Travis >>>> account >>>> >>>> won't help. >>>> >>>> >>>> Every few weeks we reach the user's time limit for >>>> a single >>>> >>>> profile. >>>> >>>> >>>> This makes the user's builds simply fail, until we >>>> either >>>> >>>> properly >>>> >>>> >>>> decrease the time the tests take (which I am not >>>> sure we ever >>>> >>>> did) or >>>> >>>> >>>> postpone the problem by splitting into more >>>> profiles. (Note >>>> >>>> that the ASF >>>> >>>> >>>> Travis account has higher time limits) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dawid >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 26/06/2019 09:36, Robert Metzger wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Do we know if using "the best" available hardware >>>> would >>>> >>>> improve the >>>> >>>> >> build >>>> >>>> >>>>> times? >>>> >>>> >>>>> Imagine we would run the build on machines with >>>> plenty of >>>> >>>> main memory >>>> >>>> >> to >>>> >>>> >>>>> mount everything to ramdisk + the latest CPU >>>> architecture? >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Throwing hardware at the problem could help reduce >>>> the time >>>> >>>> of an >>>> >>>> >>>>> individual build, and using our own infrastructure >>>> would >>>> >>>> remove our >>>> >>>> >>>>> dependency on Apache's Travis account (with the >>>> obvious >>>> >>>> downside of >>>> >>>> >>>> having >>>> >>>> >>>>> to maintain the infrastructure) >>>> >>>> >>>>> We could use an open source travis alternative, to >>>> have a >>>> >>>> similar >>>> >>>> >>>>> experience and make the migration easy. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:34 AM Chesnay Schepler >>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >From what I gathered, there's no special >>>> sauce that the >>>> >>>> Zeppelin >>>> >>>> >>>>>> project uses which actually integrates a users >>>> Travis >>>> >>>> account into the >>>> >>>>�� >>>> PR. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> They just disabled Travis for PRs. And that's >>>> kind of it. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Naturally we can do this (duh) and safe the ASF a >>>> fair >>>> >>>> amount of >>>> >>>> >>>>>> resources, but there are downsides: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> The discoverability of the Travis check takes a >>>> nose-dive. >>>> >>>> Either we >>>> >>>> >>>>>> require every contributor to always, an every >>>> commit, also >>>> >>>> post a >>>> >>>> >> Travis >>>> >>>> >>>>>> build, or we have the reviewer sift through the >>>> >>>> contributors account >>>> >>>> >> to >>>> >>>> >>>>>> find it. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> This is rather cumbersome. Additionally, it's >>>> also not >>>> >>>> equivalent to >>>> >>>> >>>>>> having a PR build. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> A normal branch build takes a branch as is and >>>> tests it. A >>>> >>>> PR build >>>> >>>> >>>>>> merges the branch into master, and then runs it. >>>> (Fun fact: >>>> >>>> This is >>>> >>>> >> why >>>> >>>> >>>>>> a PR without merge conflicts is not being run on >>>> Travis.) >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> And ultimately, everyone can already make use >>>> of this >>>> >>>> approach anyway. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> On 25/06/2019 08:02, Jark Wu wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jeff, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing the Zeppelin approach. I >>>> think it's a >>>> >>>> good idea to >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> leverage user's travis account. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> In this way, we can have almost unlimited >>>> concurrent build >>>> >>>> jobs and >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> developers can restart build by themselves >>>> (currently only >>>> >>>> committers >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> can restart PR's build). >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> But I'm still not very clear how to integrate >>>> user's >>>> >>>> travis build >>>> >>>> >> into >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> the Flink pull request's build automatically. >>>> Can you >>>> >>>> explain more in >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> detail? >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Another question: does travis only build >>>> branches for user >>>> >>>> account? >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> My concern is that builds for PRs will rebase >>>> user's >>>> >>>> commits against >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> current master branch. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> This will help us to find problems before >>>> merge. Builds >>>> >>>> for branches >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> will lose the impact of new commits in master. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> How does Zeppelin solve this problem? >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again for sharing the idea. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jark >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:01, Jeff Zhang >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Folks, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Zeppelin meet this kind of issue before, we >>>> solve >>>> >>>> it by >>>> >>>> >> delegating >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> each >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> one's PR build to his travis account >>>> (Everyone can >>>> >>>> have 5 free >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> slot for >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis build). >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Apache account travis build is only >>>> triggered when >>>> >>>> PR is merged. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Kurt Young <[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> 于2019年6月25日周二 上午10:16写道： >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > (Forgot to cc George) >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Best, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Kurt >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kurt Young >>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Hi Bowen, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Thanks for bringing this up. We >>>> actually have >>>> >>>> discussed >>>> >>>> >> about >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> this, and I >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > think Till and George have >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > already spend sometime investigating >>>> it. I have >>>> >>>> cced both of >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> them, and >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > maybe they can share >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > their findings. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Best, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Kurt >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:08 AM Jark Wu >>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Hi Bowen, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Thanks for bringing this. We also >>>> suffered from >>>> >>>> the long >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> build time. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I agree that we should focus on >>>> solving build >>>> >>>> capacity >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> problem in the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> thread. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> My observation is there is only one >>>> build is >>>> >>>> running, all >>>> >>>> >> the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> others >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> (other >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> PRs, master) are pending. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> The pricing plan[1] of travis shows >>>> it can >>>> >>>> support >>>> >>>> >> concurrent >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> build >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > jobs. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> But I don't know which plan we are >>>> using, might >>>> >>>> be the free >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan for >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > open >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> source. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I cc-ed Chesnay who may have some >>>> experience on >>>> >>>> Travis. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Jark >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> [1]: https://travis-ci.com/plans >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 08:11, Bowen Li < >>>> >>>> >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > Hi Steven, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > I think you may not read what I >>>> wrote. The >>>> >>>> discussion is >>>> >>>> >>>> about >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > "unstable >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > build **capacity**", in another word >>>> >>>> "unstable / lack of >>>> >>>> >>>> build >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> resources", >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > not "unstable build". >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:40 PM >>>> Steven Wu >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > long and sometimes unstable build is >>>> >>>> definitely a pain >>>> >>>> >>>>>> point. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > I suspect the build failure here in >>>> >>>> >> flink-connector-kafka >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> is not >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> related >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > to >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > my change. but there is no easy >>>> re-run the >>>> >>>> build on >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis UI. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > search showed a trick of >>>> close-and-open the >>>> >>>> PR will >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> trigger rebuild. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> but >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that could add noises to the PR >>>> activities. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/545555519 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > travis-ci for my personal repo >>>> often failed >>>> >>>> with >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> exceeding time >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > limit >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > after >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 4+ hours. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > The job exceeded the maximum time >>>> limit for >>>> >>>> jobs, and >>>> >>>> >> has >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> been >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > terminated. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:15 PM >>>> Bowen Li >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/549681530 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> This build >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > request >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > has >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > been sitting at **HEAD of the >>>> queue** >>>> >>>> since I first >>>> >>>> >> saw >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> it at PST >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 10:30am >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > (not sure how long it's been >>>> there before >>>> >>>> 10:30am). >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> It's PST >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > 4:12pm >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> now >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > and >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > it hasn't started yet. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:48 PM >>>> Bowen Li >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > Hi devs, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I've been experiencing the pain >>>> >>>> resulting from lack >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> of stable >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> build >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > capacity on Travis for Flink >>>> PRs [1]. >>>> >>>> >> Specifically, I >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> noticed >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> often >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > no >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build in the queue is making any >>>> >>>> progress for >>>> >>>> >> hours, >>>> >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > suddenly >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> 5 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > or >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 6 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > builds kick off all together >>>> after the >>>> >>>> long pause. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> I'm at PST >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > (UTC-08) >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > time >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > zone, and I've seen pause can >>>> be as >>>> >>>> long as 6 hours >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> from PST 9am >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> to >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 3pm >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > (let alone the time needed to >>>> drain the >>>> >>>> queue >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> afterwards). >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I think this has greatly >>>> impacted our >>>> >>>> productivity. >>>> >>>> >>>> I've >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> experienced >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > PRs submitted in the early >>>> morning of >>>> >>>> PST time zone >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> won't finish >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > their >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build until late night of the >>>> same day. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > So my questions are: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - Has anyone else experienced >>>> the same >>>> >>>> problem or >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> have similar >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > observation >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > on TravisCI? (I suspect it >>>> has things >>>> >>>> to do with >>>> >>>> >> time >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> zone) >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - What pricing plan of >>>> TravisCI is >>>> >>>> Flink currently >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> using? Is it >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > free >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > plan for open source >>>> projects? What >>>> >>>> are the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> guaranteed build >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> capacity >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > of >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > the current plan? >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - If the current pricing plan >>>> (either >>>> >>>> free or paid) >>>> >>>> >>>>>> can't >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > provide >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > stable >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build capacity, can we >>>> upgrade to a >>>> >>>> higher priced >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan with >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > larger >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > and >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > more >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > stable build capacity? >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > BTW, another factor that >>>> contribute to >>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> productivity problem >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > is >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > that >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > our build is slow - we run >>>> full build >>>> >>>> for every PR >>>> >>>> >>>> and a >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> successful >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > full >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build takes ~5h. We >>>> definitely have >>>> >>>> more options to >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> solve it, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > for >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > instance, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > modularize the build graphs >>>> and reuse >>>> >>>> artifacts >>>> >>>> >> from >>>> >>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > previous >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > build. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > But I think that can be a big >>>> effort >>>> >>>> which is much >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> harder to >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > accomplish >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > in >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > a short period of time and >>>> may deserve >>>> >>>> its own >>>> >>>> >>>> separate >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> discussion. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > [1] >>>> >>>> >> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/pull_requests >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jeff Zhang >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > |
[RESULT][VOTE] Migrate to sponsored Travis account
|
|
In reply to this post by Chesnay Schepler-3
The vote has passed unanimously in favor of migrating to a separate
Travis account. I will now set things up such that no PullRequest is no longer run on the ASF servers. This is a major setup in reducing our usage of ASF resources. For the time being we'll use free Travis plan for flink-ci (i.e. 5 workers, which is the same the ASF gives us). Over the course of the next week we'll setup the Ververica subscription to increase this limit. From now now, a bot will mirror all new and updated PullRequests to a mirror repository (https://github.com/flink-ci/flink-ci) and write an update into the PR once the build is complete. I have ran the bots for the past 3 days in parallel to our existing Travis and it was working without major issues. The biggest change that contributors will see is that there's no longer a icon next to each commit. We may revisit this in the future. I'll setup a repo with the source of the bot later. On 04/07/2019 10:46, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > I've raised a JIRA > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18703>with INFRA to > inquire whether it would be possible to switch to a different Travis > account, and if so what steps would need to be taken. > We need a proper confirmation from INFRA since we are not in full > control of the flink repository (for example, we cannot access the > settings page). > > If this is indeed possible, Ververica is willing sponsor a Travis > account for the Flink project. > This would provide us with more than enough resources than we need. > > Since this makes the project more reliant on resources provided by > external companies I would like to vote on this. > > Please vote on this proposal, as follows: > [ ] +1, Approve the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis account, > provided that INFRA approves > [ ] -1, Do not approach the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis > account > > The vote will be open for at least 24h, and until we have confirmation > from INFRA. The voting period may be shorter than the usual 3 days > since our current is effectively not working. > > On 04/07/2019 06:51, Bowen Li wrote: >> Re: > Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to >> an entirely different CI service? >> >> I reached out to Wes and Krisztián from Apache Arrow PMC. They are >> currently moving away from ASF's Travis to their own in-house metal >> machines at [1] with custom CI application at [2]. They've seen >> significant improvement w.r.t both much higher performance and >> basically no resource waiting time, "night-and-day" difference >> quoting Wes. >> >> Re: > If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our >> project, then this might be something we can do fairly quickly? >> >> I believe so, according to [3] and [4] >> >> >> [1] https://ci.ursalabs.org/ <https://ci.ursalabs.org/#/> >> [2] https://github.com/ursa-labs/ursabot >> [3] >> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration >> [4] https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-on-travis-ci-com >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:01 AM Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >> >> Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to an >> entirely different CI service? >> >> If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our >> project, then >> this might be something we can do fairly quickly? >> >> On 03/07/2019 05:55, Bowen Li wrote: >> > I responded in the INFRA ticket [1] that I believe they are >> using a wrong >> > metric against Flink and the total build time is a completely >> different >> > thing than guaranteed build capacity. >> > >> > My response: >> > >> > "As mentioned above, since I started to pay attention to Flink's >> build >> > queue a few tens of days ago, I'm in Seattle and I saw no build >> was kicking >> > off in PST daytime in weekdays for Flink. Our teammates in China >> and Europe >> > have also reported similar observations. So we need to evaluate >> how the >> > large total build time came from - if 1) your number and 2) our >> > observations from three locations that cover pretty much a full >> day, are >> > all true, I **guess** one reason can be that - highly likely the >> extra >> > build time came from weekends when other Apache projects may be >> idle and >> > Flink just drains hard its congested queue. >> > >> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack of >> resources >> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, >> dedicated** >> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even if >> no build is >> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head in >> PST >> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an absurd >> amount of >> > waiting time. >> > >> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system and >> grants >> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for >> Flink, that'll >> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. >> > >> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack of >> resources >> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, >> dedicated** >> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even if >> no build is >> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head in >> PST >> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an absurd >> amount of >> > waiting time. >> > >> > >> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system and >> grants >> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for >> Flink, that'll >> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. >> > >> > I feel what's missing in the ASF INFRA's Travis resource pool is >> some level >> > of build capacity SLAs and certainty" >> > >> > >> > Again, I believe there are differences in nature of these two >> problems, >> > long build time v.s. lack of dedicated build resource. That's >> saying, >> > shortening build time may relieve the situation, and may not. >> I'm sightly >> > negative on disabling IT cases for PRs, due to the downside is >> that we are >> > at risk of any potential bugs in PR that UTs doesn't catch, and >> may cost a >> > lot more to fix and if it slows others down or even block >> others, but am >> > open to others opinions on it. >> > >> > AFAICT from INFRA ticket[1], donating to ASF INFRA won't be >> feasible to >> > solve our problem since INFRA's pool is fully shared and they >> have no >> > control and finer insights over resource allocation to a >> specific Apache >> > project. As mentioned in [1], Apache Arrow is moving away from >> ASF INFRA >> > Travis pool (they are actually surprised Flink hasn't plan to do >> so). I >> > know that Spark is on its own build infra. If we all agree that >> funding our >> > own build infra, I'd be glad to help investigate any potential >> options >> > after releasing 1.9 since I'm super busy with 1.9 now. >> > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:46 AM Chesnay Schepler >> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >> > >> >> As a short-term stopgap, since we can assume this issue to >> become much >> >> worse in the following days/weeks, we could disable IT cases in >> PRs and >> >> only run them on master. >> >> >> >> On 02/07/2019 12:03, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >> >>> People really have to stop thinking that just because >> something works >> >>> for us it is also a good solution. >> >>> Also, please remember that our builds run for 2h from start to >> finish, >> >>> and not the 14 _minutes_ it takes for zeppelin. >> >>> We are dealing with an entirely different scale here, both in >> terms of >> >>> build times and number of builds. >> >>> >> >>> In this very thread people have been complaining about long >> queue >> >>> times for their builds. Surprise, other Apache projects have >> been >> >>> suffering the very same thing due to us not controlling our >> build >> >>> times. While switching services (be it Jenkins, CircleCI or >> whatever) >> >>> will possibly work for us (and these options are actually >> attractive, >> >>> like CircleCI's proper support for build artifacts), it will >> also >> >>> result in us likely negatively affecting other projects in >> significant >> >>> ways. >> >>> >> >>> Sure, the Jenkins setup has a good user experience for us, at >> the cost >> >>> of blocking Jenkins workers for a _lot_ of time. Right now we >> have 25 >> >>> PR's in our queue; that's possibly 50h we'd consume of Jenkins >> >>> resources, and the European contributors haven't even really >> started yet. >> >>> >> >>> FYI, the latest INFRA response from INFRA-18533: >> >>> >> >>> "Our rough metrics shows that Flink used over 5800 hours of >> build time >> >>> last month. That is equal to EIGHT servers running 24/7 for >> the ENTIRE >> >>> MONTH. EIGHT. nonstop. >> >>> When we discovered this last night, we discussed it some and >> are going >> >>> to tune down Flink to allow only five executors maximum. We >> cannot >> >>> allow Flink to consume so much of a Foundation shared resource." >> >>> >> >>> So yes, we either >> >>> a) have to heavily reduce our CI usage or >> >>> b) fund our own, either maintaining it ourselves or donating >> to Apache. >> >>> >> >>> On 02/07/2019 05:11, Bowen Li wrote: >> >>>> By looking at the git history of the Jenkins script, its core >> part >> >>>> was finished in March 2017 (and only two minor update in >> 2017/2018), >> >>>> so it's been running for over two years now and feels like >> Zepplin >> >>>> community has been quite happy with it. @Jeff Zhang >> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> can you >> share your insights and user >> >>>> experience with the Jenkins+Travis approach? >> >>>> >> >>>> Things like: >> >>>> >> >>>> - has the approach completely solved the resource capacity >> problem >> >>>> for Zepplin community? is Zepplin community happy with the >> result? >> >>>> - is the whole configuration chain stable (e.g. uptime) enough? >> >>>> - how often do you need to maintain the Jenkins infra? how many >> >>>> people are usually involved in maintenance and bug-fixes? >> >>>> >> >>>> The downside of this approach seems mostly to be on the >> maintenance >> >>>> to me - maintain the script and Jenkins infra. >> >>>> >> >>>> ** Having Our Own Travis-CI.com Account ** >> >>>> >> >>>> Another alternative I've been thinking of is to have our own >> >>>> travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> <http://travis-ci.com> >> account with paid dedicated >> >>>> resources. Note travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> >> <http://travis-ci.org> is the free >> >>>> version and travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> >> <http://travis-ci.com> is the commercial >> >>>> version. We currently use a shared resource pool managed by >> ASK INFRA >> >>>> team on travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> >> <http://travis-ci.org>, but we have no control >> >>>> over it - we can't see how it's configured, how much >> resources are >> >>>> available, how resources are allocated among Apache projects, >> etc. >> >>>> The nice thing about having an account on travis-ci.com >> <http://travis-ci.com> >> >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> are: >> >>>> >> >>>> - relatively low cost with much better resource guarantee >> than what >> >>>> we currently have [1]: $249/month with 5 dedicated concurrency, >> >>>> $489/month with 10 concurrency >> >>>> - low maintenance work compared to using Jenkins >> >>>> - (potentially) no migration cost according to Travis's doc [2] >> >>>> (pending verification) >> >>>> - full control over the build capacity/configuration >> compared to >> >>>> using ASF INFRA's pool >> >>>> >> >>>> I'd be surprised if we as such a vibrant community cannot >> find and >> >>>> fund $249*12=$2988 a year in exchange for a much better >> developer >> >>>> experience and much higher productivity. >> >>>> >> >>>> [1] https://travis-ci.com/plans >> >>>> [2] >> >>>> >> >> >> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration >> >>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM Chesnay Schepler >> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> So yes, the Jenkins job keeps pulling the state from >> Travis until it >> >>>> finishes. >> >>>> >> >>>> Note sure I'm comfortable with the idea of using Jenkins >> workers >> >>>> just to >> >>>> idle for a several hours. >> >>>> >> >>>> On 29/06/2019 14:56, Jeff Zhang wrote: >> >>>> > Here's what zeppelin community did, we make a python >> script to >> >>>> check the >> >>>> > build status of pull request. >> >>>> > Here's script: >> >>>> > >> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/travis_check.py >> >>>> > >> >>>> > And this is the script we used in Jenkins build job. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > if [ -f "travis_check.py" ]; then >> >>>> > git log -n 1 >> >>>> > STATUS=$(curl -s $BUILD_URL | grep -e "GitHub pull >> >>>> request.*from.*" | sed >> >>>> > 's/.*GitHub pull request <a >> >>>> > href=\"\(https[^"]*\).*from[^"]*.\(https[^"]*\).*/\1 >> \2/g') >> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(echo $STATUS | sed 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') >> >>>> > PR=$(echo $STATUS | awk '{print $1}' | sed >> >>>> 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') >> >>>> > #COMMIT=$(git log -n 1 | grep "^Merge:" | awk >> '{print $3}') >> >>>> > #if [ -z $COMMIT ]; then >> >>>> > # COMMIT=$(curl -s >> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR >> >>>> > | grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | >> tr '\n' ' ' >> >>>> | sed >> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = '\n' | >> grep -v >> >>>> "apache:" | >> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') >> >>>> > #fi >> >>>> > >> >>>> > # get commit hash from PR >> >>>> > COMMIT=$(curl -s >> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR | >> >>>> > grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | tr >> '\n' ' ' >> >>>> | sed >> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = '\n' | >> grep -v >> >>>> "apache:" | >> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') >> >>>> > sleep 30 # sleep few moment to wait travis starts >> the build >> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 >> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || >> RET_CODE=$? >> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # try with repository >> name when >> >>>> travis-ci is >> >>>> > not available in the account >> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 >> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(curl -s >> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR >> >>>> > | grep '"full_name":' | grep -v "apache/zeppelin" | sed >> >>>> > 's/.*[:][^"]*["]\([^/]*\).*/\1/g') >> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || >> RET_CODE=$? >> >>>> > fi >> >>>> > >> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # fail with can't find >> build >> >>>> information in >> >>>> > the travis >> >>>> > set +x >> >>>> > echo >> "-----------------------------------------------------" >> >>>> > echo "Looks like travis-ci is not configured for >> your fork." >> >>>> > echo "Please setup by swich on 'zeppelin' >> repository at >> >>>> > https://travis-ci.org/profile and travis-ci." >> >>>> > echo "And then make sure 'Build branch updates' >> option is >> >>>> enabled in >> >>>> > the settings >> https://travis-ci.org/${AUTHOR}/zeppelin/settings >> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings> >> >>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings>." >> >>>> > echo "" >> >>>> > echo "To trigger CI after setup, you will need >> ammend your >> >>>> last commit >> >>>> > with" >> >>>> > echo "git commit --amend" >> >>>> > echo "git push your-remote HEAD --force" >> >>>> > echo "" >> >>>> > echo "See >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >> >> http://zeppelin.apache.org/contribution/contributions.html#continuous-integration >> >>>> > ." >> >>>> > fi >> >>>> > >> >>>> > exit $RET_CODE >> >>>> > else >> >>>> > set +x >> >>>> > echo "travis_check.py does not exists" >> >>>> > exit 1 >> >>>> > fi >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]> >> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >> 于2019年6月29日周六 下午3:17写道： >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> Does this imply that a Jenkins job is active as long >> as the >> >>>> Travis build >> >>>> >> runs? >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> On 26/06/2019 21:28, Bowen Li wrote: >> >>>> >>> Hi, >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> @Dawid, I think the "long test running" as I >> mentioned in the >> >>>> first >> >>>> >> email, >> >>>> >>> also as you guys said, belongs to "a big effort >> which is much >> >>>> harder to >> >>>> >>> accomplish in a short period of time and may deserve >> its own >> >>>> separate >> >>>> >>> discussion". Thus I didn't include it in what we can >> do in a >> >>>> foreseeable >> >>>> >>> short term. >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> Besides, I don't think that's the ultimate reason >> for lack of >> >>>> build >> >>>> >>> resources. Even if the build is shortened to >> something like >> >>>> 2h, the >> >>>> >>> problems of no build machine works about 6 or more >> hours in >> >>>> PST daytime >> >>>> >>> that I described will still happen, because no >> machine from >> >>>> ASF INFRA's >> >>>> >>> pool is allocated to Flink. As I have paid close >> attention to >> >>>> the build >> >>>> >>> queue in the past few weekdays, it's a pretty clear >> pattern now. >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> **The ultimate root cause** for that is - we don't >> have any >> >>>> **dedicated** >> >>>> >>> build resources that we can stably rely on. I'm >> actually ok to >> >>>> wait for a >> >>>> >>> long time if there are build requests running, it >> means at >> >>>> least we are >> >>>> >>> making progress. But I'm not ok with no build >> resource. A >> >>>> better place I >> >>>> >>> think we should aim at in short term is to always >> have at >> >>>> least a central >> >>>> >>> pool (can be 3 or 5) of machines dedicated to build >> Flink at >> >>>> any time, or >> >>>> >>> maybe use users resources. >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> @Chesnay @Robert I synced with Jeff offline that >> Zeppelin >> >>>> community is >> >>>> >>> using a Jenkins job to automatically build on users' >> travis >> >>>> account and >> >>>> >>> link the result back to github PR. I guess the >> Jenkins job >> >>>> would fetch >> >>>> >>> latest upstream master and build the PR against it. >> Jeff has >> >>>> filed >> >>>> >> tickets >> >>>> >>> to learn and get access to the Jenkins infra. It'll >> better to >> >>>> fully >> >>>> >>> understand it first before judging this approach. >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> I also heard good things about CircleCI, and ASF >> INFRA seems >> >>>> to have a >> >>>> >> pool >> >>>> >>> of build capacity there too. Can be an alternative >> to consider. >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:44 AM Dawid Wysakowicz < >> >>>> >> [hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >> >>>> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>>> Sorry to jump in late, but I think Bowen missed the >> most >> >>>> important point >> >>>> >>>> from Chesnay's previous message in the summary. The >> ultimate >> >>>> reason for >> >>>> >>>> all the problems is that the tests take close to 2 >> hours to >> >>>> run already. >> >>>> >>>> I fully support this claim: "Unless people start >> caring about >> >>>> test times >> >>>> >>>> before adding them, this issue cannot be solved" >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> This is also another reason why using user's Travis >> account >> >>>> won't help. >> >>>> >>>> Every few weeks we reach the user's time limit for >> a single >> >>>> profile. >> >>>> >>>> This makes the user's builds simply fail, until we >> either >> >>>> properly >> >>>> >>>> decrease the time the tests take (which I am not >> sure we ever >> >>>> did) or >> >>>> >>>> postpone the problem by splitting into more >> profiles. (Note >> >>>> that the ASF >> >>>> >>>> Travis account has higher time limits) >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> Best, >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> Dawid >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> On 26/06/2019 09:36, Robert Metzger wrote: >> >>>> >>>>> Do we know if using "the best" available hardware >> would >> >>>> improve the >> >>>> >> build >> >>>> >>>>> times? >> >>>> >>>>> Imagine we would run the build on machines with >> plenty of >> >>>> main memory >> >>>> >> to >> >>>> >>>>> mount everything to ramdisk + the latest CPU >> architecture? >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>> Throwing hardware at the problem could help reduce >> the time >> >>>> of an >> >>>> >>>>> individual build, and using our own infrastructure >> would >> >>>> remove our >> >>>> >>>>> dependency on Apache's Travis account (with the >> obvious >> >>>> downside of >> >>>> >>>> having >> >>>> >>>>> to maintain the infrastructure) >> >>>> >>>>> We could use an open source travis alternative, to >> have a >> >>>> similar >> >>>> >>>>> experience and make the migration easy. >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:34 AM Chesnay Schepler >> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >> >>>> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >>>>>> >From what I gathered, there's no special >> sauce that the >> >>>> Zeppelin >> >>>> >>>>>> project uses which actually integrates a users >> Travis >> >>>> account into the >> >>>> >>>> PR. >> >>>> >>>>>> They just disabled Travis for PRs. And that's >> kind of it. >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> Naturally we can do this (duh) and safe the ASF a >> fair >> >>>> amount of >> >>>> >>>>>> resources, but there are downsides: >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> The discoverability of the Travis check takes a >> nose-dive. >> >>>> Either we >> >>>> >>>>>> require every contributor to always, an every >> commit, also >> >>>> post a >> >>>> >> Travis >> >>>> >>>>>> build, or we have the reviewer sift through the >> >>>> contributors account >> >>>> >> to >> >>>> >>>>>> find it. >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> This is rather cumbersome. Additionally, it's >> also not >> >>>> equivalent to >> >>>> >>>>>> having a PR build. >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> A normal branch build takes a branch as is and >> tests it. A >> >>>> PR build >> >>>> >>>>>> merges the branch into master, and then runs it. >> (Fun fact: >> >>>> This is >> >>>> >> why >> >>>> >>>>>> a PR without merge conflicts is not being run on >> Travis.) >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> And ultimately, everyone can already make use of >> this >> >>>> approach anyway. >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> On 25/06/2019 08:02, Jark Wu wrote: >> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jeff, >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing the Zeppelin approach. I >> think it's a >> >>>> good idea to >> >>>> >>>>>>> leverage user's travis account. >> >>>> >>>>>>> In this way, we can have almost unlimited >> concurrent build >> >>>> jobs and >> >>>> >>>>>>> developers can restart build by themselves >> (currently only >> >>>> committers >> >>>> >>>>>>> can restart PR's build). >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> But I'm still not very clear how to integrate >> user's >> >>>> travis build >> >>>> >> into >> >>>> >>>>>>> the Flink pull request's build automatically. >> Can you >> >>>> explain more in >> >>>> >>>>>>> detail? >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> Another question: does travis only build >> branches for user >> >>>> account? >> >>>> >>>>>>> My concern is that builds for PRs will rebase >> user's >> >>>> commits against >> >>>> >>>>>>> current master branch. >> >>>> >>>>>>> This will help us to find problems before >> merge. Builds >> >>>> for branches >> >>>> >>>>>>> will lose the impact of new commits in master. >> >>>> >>>>>>> How does Zeppelin solve this problem? >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again for sharing the idea. >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >> >>>> >>>>>>> Jark >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:01, Jeff Zhang >> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Folks, >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> Zeppelin meet this kind of issue before, we solve >> >>>> it by >> >>>> >> delegating >> >>>> >>>>>>> each >> >>>> >>>>>>> one's PR build to his travis account >> (Everyone can >> >>>> have 5 free >> >>>> >>>>>>> slot for >> >>>> >>>>>>> travis build). >> >>>> >>>>>>> Apache account travis build is only triggered >> when >> >>>> PR is merged. >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> Kurt Young <[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]> >> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> 于2019年6月25日周二 上午10:16写道： >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> > (Forgot to cc George) >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > Best, >> >>>> >>>>>>> > Kurt >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kurt Young >> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Hi Bowen, >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Thanks for bringing this up. We >> actually have >> >>>> discussed >> >>>> >> about >> >>>> >>>>>>> this, and I >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > think Till and George have >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > already spend sometime investigating >> it. I have >> >>>> cced both of >> >>>> >>>>>>> them, and >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > maybe they can share >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > their findings. >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Best, >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Kurt >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:08 AM Jark Wu >> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Hi Bowen, >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Thanks for bringing this. We also >> suffered from >> >>>> the long >> >>>> >>>>>>> build time. >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I agree that we should focus on >> solving build >> >>>> capacity >> >>>> >>>>>>> problem in the >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> thread. >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> My observation is there is only one >> build is >> >>>> running, all >> >>>> >> the >> >>>> >>>>>>> others >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> (other >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> PRs, master) are pending. >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> The pricing plan[1] of travis shows >> it can >> >>>> support >> >>>> >> concurrent >> >>>> >>>>>>> build >> >>>> >>>>>>> > jobs. >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> But I don't know which plan we are >> using, might >> >>>> be the free >> >>>> >>>>>>> plan for >> >>>> >>>>>>> > open >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> source. >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I cc-ed Chesnay who may have some >> experience on >> >>>> Travis. >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Regards, >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Jark >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> [1]: https://travis-ci.com/plans >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 08:11, Bowen Li < >> >>>> >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]> >> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > Hi Steven, >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > I think you may not read what I >> wrote. The >> >>>> discussion is >> >>>> >>>> about >> >>>> >>>>>>> > "unstable >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > build **capacity**", in another word >> >>>> "unstable / lack of >> >>>> >>>> build >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> resources", >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > not "unstable build". >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:40 PM >> Steven Wu >> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > long and sometimes unstable build is >> >>>> definitely a pain >> >>>> >>>>>> point. >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > I suspect the build failure here in >> >>>> >> flink-connector-kafka >> >>>> >>>>>>> is not >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> related >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > to >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > my change. but there is no easy >> re-run the >> >>>> build on >> >>>> >>>>>>> travis UI. >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > search showed a trick of >> close-and-open the >> >>>> PR will >> >>>> >>>>>>> trigger rebuild. >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> but >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that could add noises to the PR >> activities. >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/545555519 >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > travis-ci for my personal repo >> often failed >> >>>> with >> >>>> >>>>>>> exceeding time >> >>>> >>>>>>> > limit >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > after >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 4+ hours. >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > The job exceeded the maximum time >> limit for >> >>>> jobs, and >> >>>> >> has >> >>>> >>>>>>> been >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > terminated. >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:15 PM >> Bowen Li >> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/549681530 >> >>>> >>>>>>> This build >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > request >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > has >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > been sitting at **HEAD of the >> queue** >> >>>> since I first >> >>>> >> saw >> >>>> >>>>>>> it at PST >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 10:30am >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > (not sure how long it's been >> there before >> >>>> 10:30am). >> >>>> >>>>>>> It's PST >> >>>> >>>>>>> > 4:12pm >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> now >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > and >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > it hasn't started yet. >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:48 PM >> Bowen Li >> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> wrote: >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > Hi devs, >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I've been experiencing the pain >> >>>> resulting from lack >> >>>> >>>>>>> of stable >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> build >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > capacity on Travis for Flink >> PRs [1]. >> >>>> >> Specifically, I >> >>>> >>>>>>> noticed >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> often >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > no >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build in the queue is making any >> >>>> progress for >> >>>> >> hours, >> >>>> >>>> and >> >>>> >>>>>>> > suddenly >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> 5 >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > or >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 6 >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > builds kick off all together >> after the >> >>>> long pause. >> >>>> >>>>>>> I'm at PST >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > (UTC-08) >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > time >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > zone, and I've seen pause can >> be as >> >>>> long as 6 hours >> >>>> >>>>>>> from PST 9am >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> to >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 3pm >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > (let alone the time needed to >> drain the >> >>>> queue >> >>>> >>>>>>> afterwards). >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I think this has greatly >> impacted our >> >>>> productivity. >> >>>> >>>> I've >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> experienced >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > PRs submitted in the early >> morning of >> >>>> PST time zone >> >>>> >>>>>>> won't finish >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > their >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build until late night of the >> same day. >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > So my questions are: >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - Has anyone else experienced >> the same >> >>>> problem or >> >>>> >>>>>>> have similar >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > observation >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > on TravisCI? (I suspect it >> has things >> >>>> to do with >> >>>> >> time >> >>>> >>>>>>> zone) >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - What pricing plan of >> TravisCI is >> >>>> Flink currently >> >>>> >>>>>>> using? Is it >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> the >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > free >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > plan for open source >> projects? What >> >>>> are the >> >>>> >>>>>>> guaranteed build >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> capacity >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > of >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > the current plan? >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - If the current pricing plan >> (either >> >>>> free or paid) >> >>>> >>>>>> can't >> >>>> >>>>>>> > provide >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > stable >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build capacity, can we >> upgrade to a >> >>>> higher priced >> >>>> >>>>>>> plan with >> >>>> >>>>>>> > larger >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > and >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > more >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > stable build capacity? >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > BTW, another factor that >> contribute to >> >>>> the >> >>>> >>>>>>> productivity problem >> >>>> >>>>>>> > is >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > that >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > our build is slow - we run >> full build >> >>>> for every PR >> >>>> >>>> and a >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> successful >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > full >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build takes ~5h. We >> definitely have >> >>>> more options to >> >>>> >>>>>>> solve it, >> >>>> >>>>>>> > for >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > instance, >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > modularize the build graphs >> and reuse >> >>>> artifacts >> >>>> >> from >> >>>> >>>> the >> >>>> >>>>>>> > previous >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > build. >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > But I think that can be a big >> effort >> >>>> which is much >> >>>> >>>>>>> harder to >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > accomplish >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > in >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > a short period of time and >> may deserve >> >>>> its own >> >>>> >>>> separate >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> discussion. >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > [1] >> >>>> >> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/pull_requests >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> -- >> >>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>>> Jeff Zhang >> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > > |
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Migrate to sponsored Travis account
|
|
As we used flink bot to trigger the CI test, could we add a command for
flink bot to retrigger the CI(sometimes we may encounter some flaky tests) Best, Congxian Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> 于2019年7月8日周一 上午5:01写道： > The vote has passed unanimously in favor of migrating to a separate > Travis account. > > I will now set things up such that no PullRequest is no longer run on > the ASF servers. > This is a major setup in reducing our usage of ASF resources. > For the time being we'll use free Travis plan for flink-ci (i.e. 5 > workers, which is the same the ASF gives us). Over the course of the > next week we'll setup the Ververica subscription to increase this limit. > > From now now, a bot will mirror all new and updated PullRequests to a > mirror repository (https://github.com/flink-ci/flink-ci) and write an > update into the PR once the build is complete. > I have ran the bots for the past 3 days in parallel to our existing > Travis and it was working without major issues. > > The biggest change that contributors will see is that there's no longer > a icon next to each commit. We may revisit this in the future. > > I'll setup a repo with the source of the bot later. > > On 04/07/2019 10:46, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > > I've raised a JIRA > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18703>with INFRA to > > inquire whether it would be possible to switch to a different Travis > > account, and if so what steps would need to be taken. > > We need a proper confirmation from INFRA since we are not in full > > control of the flink repository (for example, we cannot access the > > settings page). > > > > If this is indeed possible, Ververica is willing sponsor a Travis > > account for the Flink project. > > This would provide us with more than enough resources than we need. > > > > Since this makes the project more reliant on resources provided by > > external companies I would like to vote on this. > > > > Please vote on this proposal, as follows: > > [ ] +1, Approve the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis account, > > provided that INFRA approves > > [ ] -1, Do not approach the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis > > account > > > > The vote will be open for at least 24h, and until we have confirmation > > from INFRA. The voting period may be shorter than the usual 3 days > > since our current is effectively not working. > > > > On 04/07/2019 06:51, Bowen Li wrote: > >> Re: > Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to > >> an entirely different CI service? > >> > >> I reached out to Wes and Krisztián from Apache Arrow PMC. They are > >> currently moving away from ASF's Travis to their own in-house metal > >> machines at [1] with custom CI application at [2]. They've seen > >> significant improvement w.r.t both much higher performance and > >> basically no resource waiting time, "night-and-day" difference > >> quoting Wes. > >> > >> Re: > If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our > >> project, then this might be something we can do fairly quickly? > >> > >> I believe so, according to [3] and [4] > >> > >> > >> [1] https://ci.ursalabs.org/ <https://ci.ursalabs.org/#/> > >> [2] https://github.com/ursa-labs/ursabot > >> [3] > >> > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration > >> [4] > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-on-travis-ci-com > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:01 AM Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > >> > >> Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to an > >> entirely different CI service? > >> > >> If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our > >> project, then > >> this might be something we can do fairly quickly? > >> > >> On 03/07/2019 05:55, Bowen Li wrote: > >> > I responded in the INFRA ticket [1] that I believe they are > >> using a wrong > >> > metric against Flink and the total build time is a completely > >> different > >> > thing than guaranteed build capacity. > >> > > >> > My response: > >> > > >> > "As mentioned above, since I started to pay attention to Flink's > >> build > >> > queue a few tens of days ago, I'm in Seattle and I saw no build > >> was kicking > >> > off in PST daytime in weekdays for Flink. Our teammates in China > >> and Europe > >> > have also reported similar observations. So we need to evaluate > >> how the > >> > large total build time came from - if 1) your number and 2) our > >> > observations from three locations that cover pretty much a full > >> day, are > >> > all true, I **guess** one reason can be that - highly likely the > >> extra > >> > build time came from weekends when other Apache projects may be > >> idle and > >> > Flink just drains hard its congested queue. > >> > > >> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack of > >> resources > >> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, > >> dedicated** > >> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even if > >> no build is > >> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head in > >> PST > >> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an absurd > >> amount of > >> > waiting time. > >> > > >> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system and > >> grants > >> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for > >> Flink, that'll > >> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. > >> > > >> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack of > >> resources > >> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, > >> dedicated** > >> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even if > >> no build is > >> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head in > >> PST > >> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an absurd > >> amount of > >> > waiting time. > >> > > >> > > >> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system and > >> grants > >> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for > >> Flink, that'll > >> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. > >> > > >> > I feel what's missing in the ASF INFRA's Travis resource pool is > >> some level > >> > of build capacity SLAs and certainty" > >> > > >> > > >> > Again, I believe there are differences in nature of these two > >> problems, > >> > long build time v.s. lack of dedicated build resource. That's > >> saying, > >> > shortening build time may relieve the situation, and may not. > >> I'm sightly > >> > negative on disabling IT cases for PRs, due to the downside is > >> that we are > >> > at risk of any potential bugs in PR that UTs doesn't catch, and > >> may cost a > >> > lot more to fix and if it slows others down or even block > >> others, but am > >> > open to others opinions on it. > >> > > >> > AFAICT from INFRA ticket[1], donating to ASF INFRA won't be > >> feasible to > >> > solve our problem since INFRA's pool is fully shared and they > >> have no > >> > control and finer insights over resource allocation to a > >> specific Apache > >> > project. As mentioned in [1], Apache Arrow is moving away from > >> ASF INFRA > >> > Travis pool (they are actually surprised Flink hasn't plan to do > >> so). I > >> > know that Spark is on its own build infra. If we all agree that > >> funding our > >> > own build infra, I'd be glad to help investigate any potential > >> options > >> > after releasing 1.9 since I'm super busy with 1.9 now. > >> > > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:46 AM Chesnay Schepler > >> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > >> > > >> >> As a short-term stopgap, since we can assume this issue to > >> become much > >> >> worse in the following days/weeks, we could disable IT cases in > >> PRs and > >> >> only run them on master. > >> >> > >> >> On 02/07/2019 12:03, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > >> >>> People really have to stop thinking that just because > >> something works > >> >>> for us it is also a good solution. > >> >>> Also, please remember that our builds run for 2h from start to > >> finish, > >> >>> and not the 14 _minutes_ it takes for zeppelin. > >> >>> We are dealing with an entirely different scale here, both in > >> terms of > >> >>> build times and number of builds. > >> >>> > >> >>> In this very thread people have been complaining about long > >> queue > >> >>> times for their builds. Surprise, other Apache projects have > >> been > >> >>> suffering the very same thing due to us not controlling our > >> build > >> >>> times. While switching services (be it Jenkins, CircleCI or > >> whatever) > >> >>> will possibly work for us (and these options are actually > >> attractive, > >> >>> like CircleCI's proper support for build artifacts), it will > >> also > >> >>> result in us likely negatively affecting other projects in > >> significant > >> >>> ways. > >> >>> > >> >>> Sure, the Jenkins setup has a good user experience for us, at > >> the cost > >> >>> of blocking Jenkins workers for a _lot_ of time. Right now we > >> have 25 > >> >>> PR's in our queue; that's possibly 50h we'd consume of Jenkins > >> >>> resources, and the European contributors haven't even really > >> started yet. > >> >>> > >> >>> FYI, the latest INFRA response from INFRA-18533: > >> >>> > >> >>> "Our rough metrics shows that Flink used over 5800 hours of > >> build time > >> >>> last month. That is equal to EIGHT servers running 24/7 for > >> the ENTIRE > >> >>> MONTH. EIGHT. nonstop. > >> >>> When we discovered this last night, we discussed it some and > >> are going > >> >>> to tune down Flink to allow only five executors maximum. We > >> cannot > >> >>> allow Flink to consume so much of a Foundation shared resource." > >> >>> > >> >>> So yes, we either > >> >>> a) have to heavily reduce our CI usage or > >> >>> b) fund our own, either maintaining it ourselves or donating > >> to Apache. > >> >>> > >> >>> On 02/07/2019 05:11, Bowen Li wrote: > >> >>>> By looking at the git history of the Jenkins script, its core > >> part > >> >>>> was finished in March 2017 (and only two minor update in > >> 2017/2018), > >> >>>> so it's been running for over two years now and feels like > >> Zepplin > >> >>>> community has been quite happy with it. @Jeff Zhang > >> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> can you > >> share your insights and user > >> >>>> experience with the Jenkins+Travis approach? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Things like: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> - has the approach completely solved the resource capacity > >> problem > >> >>>> for Zepplin community? is Zepplin community happy with the > >> result? > >> >>>> - is the whole configuration chain stable (e.g. uptime) enough? > >> >>>> - how often do you need to maintain the Jenkins infra? how many > >> >>>> people are usually involved in maintenance and bug-fixes? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The downside of this approach seems mostly to be on the > >> maintenance > >> >>>> to me - maintain the script and Jenkins infra. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> ** Having Our Own Travis-CI.com Account ** > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Another alternative I've been thinking of is to have our own > >> >>>> travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> <http://travis-ci.com> > >> account with paid dedicated > >> >>>> resources. Note travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> > >> <http://travis-ci.org> is the free > >> >>>> version and travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> > >> <http://travis-ci.com> is the commercial > >> >>>> version. We currently use a shared resource pool managed by > >> ASK INFRA > >> >>>> team on travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> > >> <http://travis-ci.org>, but we have no control > >> >>>> over it - we can't see how it's configured, how much > >> resources are > >> >>>> available, how resources are allocated among Apache projects, > >> etc. > >> >>>> The nice thing about having an account on travis-ci.com > >> <http://travis-ci.com> > >> >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> are: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> - relatively low cost with much better resource guarantee > >> than what > >> >>>> we currently have [1]: $249/month with 5 dedicated concurrency, > >> >>>> $489/month with 10 concurrency > >> >>>> - low maintenance work compared to using Jenkins > >> >>>> - (potentially) no migration cost according to Travis's doc [2] > >> >>>> (pending verification) > >> >>>> - full control over the build capacity/configuration > >> compared to > >> >>>> using ASF INFRA's pool > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I'd be surprised if we as such a vibrant community cannot > >> find and > >> >>>> fund $249*12=$2988 a year in exchange for a much better > >> developer > >> >>>> experience and much higher productivity. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> [1] https://travis-ci.com/plans > >> >>>> [2] > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration > >> >>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM Chesnay Schepler > >> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> So yes, the Jenkins job keeps pulling the state from > >> Travis until it > >> >>>> finishes. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Note sure I'm comfortable with the idea of using Jenkins > >> workers > >> >>>> just to > >> >>>> idle for a several hours. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On 29/06/2019 14:56, Jeff Zhang wrote: > >> >>>> > Here's what zeppelin community did, we make a python > >> script to > >> >>>> check the > >> >>>> > build status of pull request. > >> >>>> > Here's script: > >> >>>> > > >> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/travis_check.py > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > And this is the script we used in Jenkins build job. > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > if [ -f "travis_check.py" ]; then > >> >>>> > git log -n 1 > >> >>>> > STATUS=$(curl -s $BUILD_URL | grep -e "GitHub pull > >> >>>> request.*from.*" | sed > >> >>>> > 's/.*GitHub pull request <a > >> >>>> > href=\"\(https[^"]*\).*from[^"]*.\(https[^"]*\).*/\1 > >> \2/g') > >> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(echo $STATUS | sed 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') > >> >>>> > PR=$(echo $STATUS | awk '{print $1}' | sed > >> >>>> 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') > >> >>>> > #COMMIT=$(git log -n 1 | grep "^Merge:" | awk > >> '{print $3}') > >> >>>> > #if [ -z $COMMIT ]; then > >> >>>> > # COMMIT=$(curl -s > >> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR > >> >>>> > | grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | > >> tr '\n' ' ' > >> >>>> | sed > >> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = '\n' | > >> grep -v > >> >>>> "apache:" | > >> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') > >> >>>> > #fi > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > # get commit hash from PR > >> >>>> > COMMIT=$(curl -s > >> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR | > >> >>>> > grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | tr > >> '\n' ' ' > >> >>>> | sed > >> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = '\n' | > >> grep -v > >> >>>> "apache:" | > >> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') > >> >>>> > sleep 30 # sleep few moment to wait travis starts > >> the build > >> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 > >> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || > >> RET_CODE=$? > >> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # try with repository > >> name when > >> >>>> travis-ci is > >> >>>> > not available in the account > >> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 > >> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(curl -s > >> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR > >> >>>> > | grep '"full_name":' | grep -v "apache/zeppelin" | sed > >> >>>> > 's/.*[:][^"]*["]\([^/]*\).*/\1/g') > >> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || > >> RET_CODE=$? > >> >>>> > fi > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # fail with can't find > >> build > >> >>>> information in > >> >>>> > the travis > >> >>>> > set +x > >> >>>> > echo > >> "-----------------------------------------------------" > >> >>>> > echo "Looks like travis-ci is not configured for > >> your fork." > >> >>>> > echo "Please setup by swich on 'zeppelin' > >> repository at > >> >>>> > https://travis-ci.org/profile and travis-ci." > >> >>>> > echo "And then make sure 'Build branch updates' > >> option is > >> >>>> enabled in > >> >>>> > the settings > >> https://travis-ci.org/${AUTHOR}/zeppelin/settings > >> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings> > >> >>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings>." > >> >>>> > echo "" > >> >>>> > echo "To trigger CI after setup, you will need > >> ammend your > >> >>>> last commit > >> >>>> > with" > >> >>>> > echo "git commit --amend" > >> >>>> > echo "git push your-remote HEAD --force" > >> >>>> > echo "" > >> >>>> > echo "See > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > http://zeppelin.apache.org/contribution/contributions.html#continuous-integration > >> >>>> > ." > >> >>>> > fi > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > exit $RET_CODE > >> >>>> > else > >> >>>> > set +x > >> >>>> > echo "travis_check.py does not exists" > >> >>>> > exit 1 > >> >>>> > fi > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]> > >> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > >> 于2019年6月29日周六 下午3:17写道： > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> >> Does this imply that a Jenkins job is active as long > >> as the > >> >>>> Travis build > >> >>>> >> runs? > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> On 26/06/2019 21:28, Bowen Li wrote: > >> >>>> >>> Hi, > >> >>>> >>> > >> >>>> >>> @Dawid, I think the "long test running" as I > >> mentioned in the > >> >>>> first > >> >>>> >> email, > >> >>>> >>> also as you guys said, belongs to "a big effort > >> which is much > >> >>>> harder to > >> >>>> >>> accomplish in a short period of time and may deserve > >> its own > >> >>>> separate > >> >>>> >>> discussion". Thus I didn't include it in what we can > >> do in a > >> >>>> foreseeable > >> >>>> >>> short term. > >> >>>> >>> > >> >>>> >>> Besides, I don't think that's the ultimate reason > >> for lack of > >> >>>> build > >> >>>> >>> resources. Even if the build is shortened to > >> something like > >> >>>> 2h, the > >> >>>> >>> problems of no build machine works about 6 or more > >> hours in > >> >>>> PST daytime > >> >>>> >>> that I described will still happen, because no > >> machine from > >> >>>> ASF INFRA's > >> >>>> >>> pool is allocated to Flink. As I have paid close > >> attention to > >> >>>> the build > >> >>>> >>> queue in the past few weekdays, it's a pretty clear > >> pattern now. > >> >>>> >>> > >> >>>> >>> **The ultimate root cause** for that is - we don't > >> have any > >> >>>> **dedicated** > >> >>>> >>> build resources that we can stably rely on. I'm > >> actually ok to > >> >>>> wait for a > >> >>>> >>> long time if there are build requests running, it > >> means at > >> >>>> least we are > >> >>>> >>> making progress. But I'm not ok with no build > >> resource. A > >> >>>> better place I > >> >>>> >>> think we should aim at in short term is to always > >> have at > >> >>>> least a central > >> >>>> >>> pool (can be 3 or 5) of machines dedicated to build > >> Flink at > >> >>>> any time, or > >> >>>> >>> maybe use users resources. > >> >>>> >>> > >> >>>> >>> @Chesnay @Robert I synced with Jeff offline that > >> Zeppelin > >> >>>> community is > >> >>>> >>> using a Jenkins job to automatically build on users' > >> travis > >> >>>> account and > >> >>>> >>> link the result back to github PR. I guess the > >> Jenkins job > >> >>>> would fetch > >> >>>> >>> latest upstream master and build the PR against it. > >> Jeff has > >> >>>> filed > >> >>>> >> tickets > >> >>>> >>> to learn and get access to the Jenkins infra. It'll > >> better to > >> >>>> fully > >> >>>> >>> understand it first before judging this approach. > >> >>>> >>> > >> >>>> >>> I also heard good things about CircleCI, and ASF > >> INFRA seems > >> >>>> to have a > >> >>>> >> pool > >> >>>> >>> of build capacity there too. Can be an alternative > >> to consider. > >> >>>> >>> > >> >>>> >>> > >> >>>> >>> > >> >>>> >>> > >> >>>> >>> > >> >>>> >>> > >> >>>> >>> > >> >>>> >>> > >> >>>> >>> > >> >>>> >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:44 AM Dawid Wysakowicz < > >> >>>> >> [hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > >> >>>> >>> wrote: > >> >>>> >>> > >> >>>> >>>> Sorry to jump in late, but I think Bowen missed the > >> most > >> >>>> important point > >> >>>> >>>> from Chesnay's previous message in the summary. The > >> ultimate > >> >>>> reason for > >> >>>> >>>> all the problems is that the tests take close to 2 > >> hours to > >> >>>> run already. > >> >>>> >>>> I fully support this claim: "Unless people start > >> caring about > >> >>>> test times > >> >>>> >>>> before adding them, this issue cannot be solved" > >> >>>> >>>> > >> >>>> >>>> This is also another reason why using user's Travis > >> account > >> >>>> won't help. > >> >>>> >>>> Every few weeks we reach the user's time limit for > >> a single > >> >>>> profile. > >> >>>> >>>> This makes the user's builds simply fail, until we > >> either > >> >>>> properly > >> >>>> >>>> decrease the time the tests take (which I am not > >> sure we ever > >> >>>> did) or > >> >>>> >>>> postpone the problem by splitting into more > >> profiles. (Note > >> >>>> that the ASF > >> >>>> >>>> Travis account has higher time limits) > >> >>>> >>>> > >> >>>> >>>> Best, > >> >>>> >>>> > >> >>>> >>>> Dawid > >> >>>> >>>> > >> >>>> >>>> On 26/06/2019 09:36, Robert Metzger wrote: > >> >>>> >>>>> Do we know if using "the best" available hardware > >> would > >> >>>> improve the > >> >>>> >> build > >> >>>> >>>>> times? > >> >>>> >>>>> Imagine we would run the build on machines with > >> plenty of > >> >>>> main memory > >> >>>> >> to > >> >>>> >>>>> mount everything to ramdisk + the latest CPU > >> architecture? > >> >>>> >>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>> Throwing hardware at the problem could help reduce > >> the time > >> >>>> of an > >> >>>> >>>>> individual build, and using our own infrastructure > >> would > >> >>>> remove our > >> >>>> >>>>> dependency on Apache's Travis account (with the > >> obvious > >> >>>> downside of > >> >>>> >>>> having > >> >>>> >>>>> to maintain the infrastructure) > >> >>>> >>>>> We could use an open source travis alternative, to > >> have a > >> >>>> similar > >> >>>> >>>>> experience and make the migration easy. > >> >>>> >>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:34 AM Chesnay Schepler > >> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > >> >>>> >>>> wrote: > >> >>>> >>>>>> >From what I gathered, there's no special > >> sauce that the > >> >>>> Zeppelin > >> >>>> >>>>>> project uses which actually integrates a users > >> Travis > >> >>>> account into the > >> >>>> >>>> PR. > >> >>>> >>>>>> They just disabled Travis for PRs. And that's > >> kind of it. > >> >>>> >>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>> Naturally we can do this (duh) and safe the ASF a > >> fair > >> >>>> amount of > >> >>>> >>>>>> resources, but there are downsides: > >> >>>> >>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>> The discoverability of the Travis check takes a > >> nose-dive. > >> >>>> Either we > >> >>>> >>>>>> require every contributor to always, an every > >> commit, also > >> >>>> post a > >> >>>> >> Travis > >> >>>> >>>>>> build, or we have the reviewer sift through the > >> >>>> contributors account > >> >>>> >> to > >> >>>> >>>>>> find it. > >> >>>> >>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>> This is rather cumbersome. Additionally, it's > >> also not > >> >>>> equivalent to > >> >>>> >>>>>> having a PR build. > >> >>>> >>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>> A normal branch build takes a branch as is and > >> tests it. A > >> >>>> PR build > >> >>>> >>>>>> merges the branch into master, and then runs it. > >> (Fun fact: > >> >>>> This is > >> >>>> >> why > >> >>>> >>>>>> a PR without merge conflicts is not being run on > >> Travis.) > >> >>>> >>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>> And ultimately, everyone can already make use of > >> this > >> >>>> approach anyway. > >> >>>> >>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>> On 25/06/2019 08:02, Jark Wu wrote: > >> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jeff, > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing the Zeppelin approach. I > >> think it's a > >> >>>> good idea to > >> >>>> >>>>>>> leverage user's travis account. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> In this way, we can have almost unlimited > >> concurrent build > >> >>>> jobs and > >> >>>> >>>>>>> developers can restart build by themselves > >> (currently only > >> >>>> committers > >> >>>> >>>>>>> can restart PR's build). > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> But I'm still not very clear how to integrate > >> user's > >> >>>> travis build > >> >>>> >> into > >> >>>> >>>>>>> the Flink pull request's build automatically. > >> Can you > >> >>>> explain more in > >> >>>> >>>>>>> detail? > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> Another question: does travis only build > >> branches for user > >> >>>> account? > >> >>>> >>>>>>> My concern is that builds for PRs will rebase > >> user's > >> >>>> commits against > >> >>>> >>>>>>> current master branch. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> This will help us to find problems before > >> merge. Builds > >> >>>> for branches > >> >>>> >>>>>>> will lose the impact of new commits in master. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> How does Zeppelin solve this problem? > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again for sharing the idea. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> Regards, > >> >>>> >>>>>>> Jark > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:01, Jeff Zhang > >> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Folks, > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> Zeppelin meet this kind of issue before, we solve > >> >>>> it by > >> >>>> >> delegating > >> >>>> >>>>>>> each > >> >>>> >>>>>>> one's PR build to his travis account > >> (Everyone can > >> >>>> have 5 free > >> >>>> >>>>>>> slot for > >> >>>> >>>>>>> travis build). > >> >>>> >>>>>>> Apache account travis build is only triggered > >> when > >> >>>> PR is merged. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> Kurt Young <[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]> > >> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> 于2019年6月25日周二 上午10:16写道： > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > (Forgot to cc George) > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > Best, > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > Kurt > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kurt Young > >> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >> >>>> wrote: > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Hi Bowen, > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Thanks for bringing this up. We > >> actually have > >> >>>> discussed > >> >>>> >> about > >> >>>> >>>>>>> this, and I > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > think Till and George have > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > already spend sometime investigating > >> it. I have > >> >>>> cced both of > >> >>>> >>>>>>> them, and > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > maybe they can share > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > their findings. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Best, > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Kurt > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:08 AM Jark Wu > >> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >> >>>> wrote: > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Hi Bowen, > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Thanks for bringing this. We also > >> suffered from > >> >>>> the long > >> >>>> >>>>>>> build time. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I agree that we should focus on > >> solving build > >> >>>> capacity > >> >>>> >>>>>>> problem in the > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> thread. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> My observation is there is only one > >> build is > >> >>>> running, all > >> >>>> >> the > >> >>>> >>>>>>> others > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> (other > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> PRs, master) are pending. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> The pricing plan[1] of travis shows > >> it can > >> >>>> support > >> >>>> >> concurrent > >> >>>> >>>>>>> build > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > jobs. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> But I don't know which plan we are > >> using, might > >> >>>> be the free > >> >>>> >>>>>>> plan for > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > open > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> source. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I cc-ed Chesnay who may have some > >> experience on > >> >>>> Travis. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Regards, > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Jark > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> [1]: https://travis-ci.com/plans > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 08:11, Bowen Li < > >> >>>> >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]> > >> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > Hi Steven, > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > I think you may not read what I > >> wrote. The > >> >>>> discussion is > >> >>>> >>>> about > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > "unstable > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > build **capacity**", in another word > >> >>>> "unstable / lack of > >> >>>> >>>> build > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> resources", > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > not "unstable build". > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:40 PM > >> Steven Wu > >> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > long and sometimes unstable build is > >> >>>> definitely a pain > >> >>>> >>>>>> point. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > I suspect the build failure here in > >> >>>> >> flink-connector-kafka > >> >>>> >>>>>>> is not > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> related > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > to > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > my change. but there is no easy > >> re-run the > >> >>>> build on > >> >>>> >>>>>>> travis UI. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > search showed a trick of > >> close-and-open the > >> >>>> PR will > >> >>>> >>>>>>> trigger rebuild. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> but > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that could add noises to the PR > >> activities. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/545555519 > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > travis-ci for my personal repo > >> often failed > >> >>>> with > >> >>>> >>>>>>> exceeding time > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > limit > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > after > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 4+ hours. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > The job exceeded the maximum time > >> limit for > >> >>>> jobs, and > >> >>>> >> has > >> >>>> >>>>>>> been > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > terminated. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:15 PM > >> Bowen Li > >> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/549681530 > >> >>>> >>>>>>> This build > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > request > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > has > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > been sitting at **HEAD of the > >> queue** > >> >>>> since I first > >> >>>> >> saw > >> >>>> >>>>>>> it at PST > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 10:30am > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > (not sure how long it's been > >> there before > >> >>>> 10:30am). > >> >>>> >>>>>>> It's PST > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > 4:12pm > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> now > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > and > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > it hasn't started yet. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:48 PM > >> Bowen Li > >> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> wrote: > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > Hi devs, > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I've been experiencing the pain > >> >>>> resulting from lack > >> >>>> >>>>>>> of stable > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> build > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > capacity on Travis for Flink > >> PRs [1]. > >> >>>> >> Specifically, I > >> >>>> >>>>>>> noticed > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> often > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > no > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build in the queue is making any > >> >>>> progress for > >> >>>> >> hours, > >> >>>> >>>> and > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > suddenly > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> 5 > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > or > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 6 > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > builds kick off all together > >> after the > >> >>>> long pause. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> I'm at PST > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > (UTC-08) > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > time > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > zone, and I've seen pause can > >> be as > >> >>>> long as 6 hours > >> >>>> >>>>>>> from PST 9am > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> to > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 3pm > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > (let alone the time needed to > >> drain the > >> >>>> queue > >> >>>> >>>>>>> afterwards). > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I think this has greatly > >> impacted our > >> >>>> productivity. > >> >>>> >>>> I've > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> experienced > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > PRs submitted in the early > >> morning of > >> >>>> PST time zone > >> >>>> >>>>>>> won't finish > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > their > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build until late night of the > >> same day. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > So my questions are: > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - Has anyone else experienced > >> the same > >> >>>> problem or > >> >>>> >>>>>>> have similar > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > observation > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > on TravisCI? (I suspect it > >> has things > >> >>>> to do with > >> >>>> >> time > >> >>>> >>>>>>> zone) > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - What pricing plan of > >> TravisCI is > >> >>>> Flink currently > >> >>>> >>>>>>> using? Is it > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> the > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > free > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > plan for open source > >> projects? What > >> >>>> are the > >> >>>> >>>>>>> guaranteed build > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> capacity > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > of > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > the current plan? > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - If the current pricing plan > >> (either > >> >>>> free or paid) > >> >>>> >>>>>> can't > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > provide > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > stable > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build capacity, can we > >> upgrade to a > >> >>>> higher priced > >> >>>> >>>>>>> plan with > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > larger > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > and > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > more > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > stable build capacity? > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > BTW, another factor that > >> contribute to > >> >>>> the > >> >>>> >>>>>>> productivity problem > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > is > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > that > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > our build is slow - we run > >> full build > >> >>>> for every PR > >> >>>> >>>> and a > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> successful > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > full > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build takes ~5h. We > >> definitely have > >> >>>> more options to > >> >>>> >>>>>>> solve it, > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > for > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > instance, > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > modularize the build graphs > >> and reuse > >> >>>> artifacts > >> >>>> >> from > >> >>>> >>>> the > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > previous > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > build. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > But I think that can be a big > >> effort > >> >>>> which is much > >> >>>> >>>>>>> harder to > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > accomplish > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > in > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > a short period of time and > >> may deserve > >> >>>> its own > >> >>>> >>>> separate > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> discussion. > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > [1] > >> >>>> >> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/pull_requests > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> -- > >> >>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>>>>> Jeff Zhang > >> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > > > > > > |
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Migrate to sponsored Travis account
|
|
Yes we can do that; for the time being you can add an empty commit to
re-trigger the CI. On 08/07/2019 03:49, Congxian Qiu wrote: > As we used flink bot to trigger the CI test, could we add a command for > flink bot to retrigger the CI(sometimes we may encounter some flaky tests) > > Best, > Congxian > > > Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> 于2019年7月8日周一 上午5:01写道： > >> The vote has passed unanimously in favor of migrating to a separate >> Travis account. >> >> I will now set things up such that no PullRequest is no longer run on >> the ASF servers. >> This is a major setup in reducing our usage of ASF resources. >> For the time being we'll use free Travis plan for flink-ci (i.e. 5 >> workers, which is the same the ASF gives us). Over the course of the >> next week we'll setup the Ververica subscription to increase this limit. >> >> From now now, a bot will mirror all new and updated PullRequests to a >> mirror repository (https://github.com/flink-ci/flink-ci) and write an >> update into the PR once the build is complete. >> I have ran the bots for the past 3 days in parallel to our existing >> Travis and it was working without major issues. >> >> The biggest change that contributors will see is that there's no longer >> a icon next to each commit. We may revisit this in the future. >> >> I'll setup a repo with the source of the bot later. >> >> On 04/07/2019 10:46, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >>> I've raised a JIRA >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18703>with INFRA to >>> inquire whether it would be possible to switch to a different Travis >>> account, and if so what steps would need to be taken. >>> We need a proper confirmation from INFRA since we are not in full >>> control of the flink repository (for example, we cannot access the >>> settings page). >>> >>> If this is indeed possible, Ververica is willing sponsor a Travis >>> account for the Flink project. >>> This would provide us with more than enough resources than we need. >>> >>> Since this makes the project more reliant on resources provided by >>> external companies I would like to vote on this. >>> >>> Please vote on this proposal, as follows: >>> [ ] +1, Approve the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis account, >>> provided that INFRA approves >>> [ ] -1, Do not approach the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis >>> account >>> >>> The vote will be open for at least 24h, and until we have confirmation >>> from INFRA. The voting period may be shorter than the usual 3 days >>> since our current is effectively not working. >>> >>> On 04/07/2019 06:51, Bowen Li wrote: >>>> Re: > Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to >>>> an entirely different CI service? >>>> >>>> I reached out to Wes and Krisztián from Apache Arrow PMC. They are >>>> currently moving away from ASF's Travis to their own in-house metal >>>> machines at [1] with custom CI application at [2]. They've seen >>>> significant improvement w.r.t both much higher performance and >>>> basically no resource waiting time, "night-and-day" difference >>>> quoting Wes. >>>> >>>> Re: > If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our >>>> project, then this might be something we can do fairly quickly? >>>> >>>> I believe so, according to [3] and [4] >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] https://ci.ursalabs.org/ <https://ci.ursalabs.org/#/> >>>> [2] https://github.com/ursa-labs/ursabot >>>> [3] >>>> >> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration >>>> [4] >> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-on-travis-ci-com >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:01 AM Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to an >>>> entirely different CI service? >>>> >>>> If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our >>>> project, then >>>> this might be something we can do fairly quickly? >>>> >>>> On 03/07/2019 05:55, Bowen Li wrote: >>>> > I responded in the INFRA ticket [1] that I believe they are >>>> using a wrong >>>> > metric against Flink and the total build time is a completely >>>> different >>>> > thing than guaranteed build capacity. >>>> > >>>> > My response: >>>> > >>>> > "As mentioned above, since I started to pay attention to Flink's >>>> build >>>> > queue a few tens of days ago, I'm in Seattle and I saw no build >>>> was kicking >>>> > off in PST daytime in weekdays for Flink. Our teammates in China >>>> and Europe >>>> > have also reported similar observations. So we need to evaluate >>>> how the >>>> > large total build time came from - if 1) your number and 2) our >>>> > observations from three locations that cover pretty much a full >>>> day, are >>>> > all true, I **guess** one reason can be that - highly likely the >>>> extra >>>> > build time came from weekends when other Apache projects may be >>>> idle and >>>> > Flink just drains hard its congested queue. >>>> > >>>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack of >>>> resources >>>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, >>>> dedicated** >>>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even if >>>> no build is >>>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head in >>>> PST >>>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an absurd >>>> amount of >>>> > waiting time. >>>> > >>>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system and >>>> grants >>>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for >>>> Flink, that'll >>>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. >>>> > >>>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack of >>>> resources >>>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, >>>> dedicated** >>>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even if >>>> no build is >>>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head in >>>> PST >>>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an absurd >>>> amount of >>>> > waiting time. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system and >>>> grants >>>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for >>>> Flink, that'll >>>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. >>>> > >>>> > I feel what's missing in the ASF INFRA's Travis resource pool is >>>> some level >>>> > of build capacity SLAs and certainty" >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Again, I believe there are differences in nature of these two >>>> problems, >>>> > long build time v.s. lack of dedicated build resource. That's >>>> saying, >>>> > shortening build time may relieve the situation, and may not. >>>> I'm sightly >>>> > negative on disabling IT cases for PRs, due to the downside is >>>> that we are >>>> > at risk of any potential bugs in PR that UTs doesn't catch, and >>>> may cost a >>>> > lot more to fix and if it slows others down or even block >>>> others, but am >>>> > open to others opinions on it. >>>> > >>>> > AFAICT from INFRA ticket[1], donating to ASF INFRA won't be >>>> feasible to >>>> > solve our problem since INFRA's pool is fully shared and they >>>> have no >>>> > control and finer insights over resource allocation to a >>>> specific Apache >>>> > project. As mentioned in [1], Apache Arrow is moving away from >>>> ASF INFRA >>>> > Travis pool (they are actually surprised Flink hasn't plan to do >>>> so). I >>>> > know that Spark is on its own build infra. If we all agree that >>>> funding our >>>> > own build infra, I'd be glad to help investigate any potential >>>> options >>>> > after releasing 1.9 since I'm super busy with 1.9 now. >>>> > >>>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:46 AM Chesnay Schepler >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> As a short-term stopgap, since we can assume this issue to >>>> become much >>>> >> worse in the following days/weeks, we could disable IT cases in >>>> PRs and >>>> >> only run them on master. >>>> >> >>>> >> On 02/07/2019 12:03, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >>>> >>> People really have to stop thinking that just because >>>> something works >>>> >>> for us it is also a good solution. >>>> >>> Also, please remember that our builds run for 2h from start to >>>> finish, >>>> >>> and not the 14 _minutes_ it takes for zeppelin. >>>> >>> We are dealing with an entirely different scale here, both in >>>> terms of >>>> >>> build times and number of builds. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> In this very thread people have been complaining about long >>>> queue >>>> >>> times for their builds. Surprise, other Apache projects have >>>> been >>>> >>> suffering the very same thing due to us not controlling our >>>> build >>>> >>> times. While switching services (be it Jenkins, CircleCI or >>>> whatever) >>>> >>> will possibly work for us (and these options are actually >>>> attractive, >>>> >>> like CircleCI's proper support for build artifacts), it will >>>> also >>>> >>> result in us likely negatively affecting other projects in >>>> significant >>>> >>> ways. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Sure, the Jenkins setup has a good user experience for us, at >>>> the cost >>>> >>> of blocking Jenkins workers for a _lot_ of time. Right now we >>>> have 25 >>>> >>> PR's in our queue; that's possibly 50h we'd consume of Jenkins >>>> >>> resources, and the European contributors haven't even really >>>> started yet. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> FYI, the latest INFRA response from INFRA-18533: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> "Our rough metrics shows that Flink used over 5800 hours of >>>> build time >>>> >>> last month. That is equal to EIGHT servers running 24/7 for >>>> the ENTIRE >>>> >>> MONTH. EIGHT. nonstop. >>>> >>> When we discovered this last night, we discussed it some and >>>> are going >>>> >>> to tune down Flink to allow only five executors maximum. We >>>> cannot >>>> >>> allow Flink to consume so much of a Foundation shared resource." >>>> >>> >>>> >>> So yes, we either >>>> >>> a) have to heavily reduce our CI usage or >>>> >>> b) fund our own, either maintaining it ourselves or donating >>>> to Apache. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On 02/07/2019 05:11, Bowen Li wrote: >>>> >>>> By looking at the git history of the Jenkins script, its core >>>> part >>>> >>>> was finished in March 2017 (and only two minor update in >>>> 2017/2018), >>>> >>>> so it's been running for over two years now and feels like >>>> Zepplin >>>> >>>> community has been quite happy with it. @Jeff Zhang >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> can you >>>> share your insights and user >>>> >>>> experience with the Jenkins+Travis approach? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Things like: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - has the approach completely solved the resource capacity >>>> problem >>>> >>>> for Zepplin community? is Zepplin community happy with the >>>> result? >>>> >>>> - is the whole configuration chain stable (e.g. uptime) enough? >>>> >>>> - how often do you need to maintain the Jenkins infra? how many >>>> >>>> people are usually involved in maintenance and bug-fixes? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The downside of this approach seems mostly to be on the >>>> maintenance >>>> >>>> to me - maintain the script and Jenkins infra. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ** Having Our Own Travis-CI.com Account ** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Another alternative I've been thinking of is to have our own >>>> >>>> travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> <http://travis-ci.com> >>>> account with paid dedicated >>>> >>>> resources. Note travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> >>>> <http://travis-ci.org> is the free >>>> >>>> version and travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> is the commercial >>>> >>>> version. We currently use a shared resource pool managed by >>>> ASK INFRA >>>> >>>> team on travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> >>>> <http://travis-ci.org>, but we have no control >>>> >>>> over it - we can't see how it's configured, how much >>>> resources are >>>> >>>> available, how resources are allocated among Apache projects, >>>> etc. >>>> >>>> The nice thing about having an account on travis-ci.com >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> >>>> >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> are: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - relatively low cost with much better resource guarantee >>>> than what >>>> >>>> we currently have [1]: $249/month with 5 dedicated concurrency, >>>> >>>> $489/month with 10 concurrency >>>> >>>> - low maintenance work compared to using Jenkins >>>> >>>> - (potentially) no migration cost according to Travis's doc [2] >>>> >>>> (pending verification) >>>> >>>> - full control over the build capacity/configuration >>>> compared to >>>> >>>> using ASF INFRA's pool >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'd be surprised if we as such a vibrant community cannot >>>> find and >>>> >>>> fund $249*12=$2988 a year in exchange for a much better >>>> developer >>>> >>>> experience and much higher productivity. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] https://travis-ci.com/plans >>>> >>>> [2] >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM Chesnay Schepler >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So yes, the Jenkins job keeps pulling the state from >>>> Travis until it >>>> >>>> finishes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Note sure I'm comfortable with the idea of using Jenkins >>>> workers >>>> >>>> just to >>>> >>>> idle for a several hours. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29/06/2019 14:56, Jeff Zhang wrote: >>>> >>>> > Here's what zeppelin community did, we make a python >>>> script to >>>> >>>> check the >>>> >>>> > build status of pull request. >>>> >>>> > Here's script: >>>> >>>> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/travis_check.py >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > And this is the script we used in Jenkins build job. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > if [ -f "travis_check.py" ]; then >>>> >>>> > git log -n 1 >>>> >>>> > STATUS=$(curl -s $BUILD_URL | grep -e "GitHub pull >>>> >>>> request.*from.*" | sed >>>> >>>> > 's/.*GitHub pull request <a >>>> >>>> > href=\"\(https[^"]*\).*from[^"]*.\(https[^"]*\).*/\1 >>>> \2/g') >>>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(echo $STATUS | sed 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') >>>> >>>> > PR=$(echo $STATUS | awk '{print $1}' | sed >>>> >>>> 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') >>>> >>>> > #COMMIT=$(git log -n 1 | grep "^Merge:" | awk >>>> '{print $3}') >>>> >>>> > #if [ -z $COMMIT ]; then >>>> >>>> > # COMMIT=$(curl -s >>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR >>>> >>>> > | grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | >>>> tr '\n' ' ' >>>> >>>> | sed >>>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = '\n' | >>>> grep -v >>>> >>>> "apache:" | >>>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') >>>> >>>> > #fi >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > # get commit hash from PR >>>> >>>> > COMMIT=$(curl -s >>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR | >>>> >>>> > grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | tr >>>> '\n' ' ' >>>> >>>> | sed >>>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = '\n' | >>>> grep -v >>>> >>>> "apache:" | >>>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') >>>> >>>> > sleep 30 # sleep few moment to wait travis starts >>>> the build >>>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 >>>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || >>>> RET_CODE=$? >>>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # try with repository >>>> name when >>>> >>>> travis-ci is >>>> >>>> > not available in the account >>>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 >>>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(curl -s >>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR >>>> >>>> > | grep '"full_name":' | grep -v "apache/zeppelin" | sed >>>> >>>> > 's/.*[:][^"]*["]\([^/]*\).*/\1/g') >>>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || >>>> RET_CODE=$? >>>> >>>> > fi >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # fail with can't find >>>> build >>>> >>>> information in >>>> >>>> > the travis >>>> >>>> > set +x >>>> >>>> > echo >>>> "-----------------------------------------------------" >>>> >>>> > echo "Looks like travis-ci is not configured for >>>> your fork." >>>> >>>> > echo "Please setup by swich on 'zeppelin' >>>> repository at >>>> >>>> > https://travis-ci.org/profile and travis-ci." >>>> >>>> > echo "And then make sure 'Build branch updates' >>>> option is >>>> >>>> enabled in >>>> >>>> > the settings >>>> https://travis-ci.org/${AUTHOR}/zeppelin/settings >>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings> >>>> >>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings>." >>>> >>>> > echo "" >>>> >>>> > echo "To trigger CI after setup, you will need >>>> ammend your >>>> >>>> last commit >>>> >>>> > with" >>>> >>>> > echo "git commit --amend" >>>> >>>> > echo "git push your-remote HEAD --force" >>>> >>>> > echo "" >>>> >>>> > echo "See >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >> http://zeppelin.apache.org/contribution/contributions.html#continuous-integration >>>> >>>> > ." >>>> >>>> > fi >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > exit $RET_CODE >>>> >>>> > else >>>> >>>> > set +x >>>> >>>> > echo "travis_check.py does not exists" >>>> >>>> > exit 1 >>>> >>>> > fi >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>>> 于2019年6月29日周六 下午3:17写道： >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >> Does this imply that a Jenkins job is active as long >>>> as the >>>> >>>> Travis build >>>> >>>> >> runs? >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> On 26/06/2019 21:28, Bowen Li wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> Hi, >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> @Dawid, I think the "long test running" as I >>>> mentioned in the >>>> >>>> first >>>> >>>> >> email, >>>> >>>> >>> also as you guys said, belongs to "a big effort >>>> which is much >>>> >>>> harder to >>>> >>>> >>> accomplish in a short period of time and may deserve >>>> its own >>>> >>>> separate >>>> >>>> >>> discussion". Thus I didn't include it in what we can >>>> do in a >>>> >>>> foreseeable >>>> >>>> >>> short term. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> Besides, I don't think that's the ultimate reason >>>> for lack of >>>> >>>> build >>>> >>>> >>> resources. Even if the build is shortened to >>>> something like >>>> >>>> 2h, the >>>> >>>> >>> problems of no build machine works about 6 or more >>>> hours in >>>> >>>> PST daytime >>>> >>>> >>> that I described will still happen, because no >>>> machine from >>>> >>>> ASF INFRA's >>>> >>>> >>> pool is allocated to Flink. As I have paid close >>>> attention to >>>> >>>> the build >>>> >>>> >>> queue in the past few weekdays, it's a pretty clear >>>> pattern now. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> **The ultimate root cause** for that is - we don't >>>> have any >>>> >>>> **dedicated** >>>> >>>> >>> build resources that we can stably rely on. I'm >>>> actually ok to >>>> >>>> wait for a >>>> >>>> >>> long time if there are build requests running, it >>>> means at >>>> >>>> least we are >>>> >>>> >>> making progress. But I'm not ok with no build >>>> resource. A >>>> >>>> better place I >>>> >>>> >>> think we should aim at in short term is to always >>>> have at >>>> >>>> least a central >>>> >>>> >>> pool (can be 3 or 5) of machines dedicated to build >>>> Flink at >>>> >>>> any time, or >>>> >>>> >>> maybe use users resources. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> @Chesnay @Robert I synced with Jeff offline that >>>> Zeppelin >>>> >>>> community is >>>> >>>> >>> using a Jenkins job to automatically build on users' >>>> travis >>>> >>>> account and >>>> >>>> >>> link the result back to github PR. I guess the >>>> Jenkins job >>>> >>>> would fetch >>>> >>>> >>> latest upstream master and build the PR against it. >>>> Jeff has >>>> >>>> filed >>>> >>>> >> tickets >>>> >>>> >>> to learn and get access to the Jenkins infra. It'll >>>> better to >>>> >>>> fully >>>> >>>> >>> understand it first before judging this approach. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> I also heard good things about CircleCI, and ASF >>>> INFRA seems >>>> >>>> to have a >>>> >>>> >> pool >>>> >>>> >>> of build capacity there too. Can be an alternative >>>> to consider. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:44 AM Dawid Wysakowicz < >>>> >>>> >> [hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>>> >>>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry to jump in late, but I think Bowen missed the >>>> most >>>> >>>> important point >>>> >>>> >>>> from Chesnay's previous message in the summary. The >>>> ultimate >>>> >>>> reason for >>>> >>>> >>>> all the problems is that the tests take close to 2 >>>> hours to >>>> >>>> run already. >>>> >>>> >>>> I fully support this claim: "Unless people start >>>> caring about >>>> >>>> test times >>>> >>>> >>>> before adding them, this issue cannot be solved" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is also another reason why using user's Travis >>>> account >>>> >>>> won't help. >>>> >>>> >>>> Every few weeks we reach the user's time limit for >>>> a single >>>> >>>> profile. >>>> >>>> >>>> This makes the user's builds simply fail, until we >>>> either >>>> >>>> properly >>>> >>>> >>>> decrease the time the tests take (which I am not >>>> sure we ever >>>> >>>> did) or >>>> >>>> >>>> postpone the problem by splitting into more >>>> profiles. (Note >>>> >>>> that the ASF >>>> >>>> >>>> Travis account has higher time limits) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dawid >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 26/06/2019 09:36, Robert Metzger wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Do we know if using "the best" available hardware >>>> would >>>> >>>> improve the >>>> >>>> >> build >>>> >>>> >>>>> times? >>>> >>>> >>>>> Imagine we would run the build on machines with >>>> plenty of >>>> >>>> main memory >>>> >>>> >> to >>>> >>>> >>>>> mount everything to ramdisk + the latest CPU >>>> architecture? >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Throwing hardware at the problem could help reduce >>>> the time >>>> >>>> of an >>>> >>>> >>>>> individual build, and using our own infrastructure >>>> would >>>> >>>> remove our >>>> >>>> >>>>> dependency on Apache's Travis account (with the >>>> obvious >>>> >>>> downside of >>>> >>>> >>>> having >>>> >>>> >>>>> to maintain the infrastructure) >>>> >>>> >>>>> We could use an open source travis alternative, to >>>> have a >>>> >>>> similar >>>> >>>> >>>>> experience and make the migration easy. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:34 AM Chesnay Schepler >>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >From what I gathered, there's no special >>>> sauce that the >>>> >>>> Zeppelin >>>> >>>> >>>>>> project uses which actually integrates a users >>>> Travis >>>> >>>> account into the >>>> >>>> >>>> PR. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> They just disabled Travis for PRs. And that's >>>> kind of it. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Naturally we can do this (duh) and safe the ASF a >>>> fair >>>> >>>> amount of >>>> >>>> >>>>>> resources, but there are downsides: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> The discoverability of the Travis check takes a >>>> nose-dive. >>>> >>>> Either we >>>> >>>> >>>>>> require every contributor to always, an every >>>> commit, also >>>> >>>> post a >>>> >>>> >> Travis >>>> >>>> >>>>>> build, or we have the reviewer sift through the >>>> >>>> contributors account >>>> >>>> >> to >>>> >>>> >>>>>> find it. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> This is rather cumbersome. Additionally, it's >>>> also not >>>> >>>> equivalent to >>>> >>>> >>>>>> having a PR build. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> A normal branch build takes a branch as is and >>>> tests it. A >>>> >>>> PR build >>>> >>>> >>>>>> merges the branch into master, and then runs it. >>>> (Fun fact: >>>> >>>> This is >>>> >>>> >> why >>>> >>>> >>>>>> a PR without merge conflicts is not being run on >>>> Travis.) >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> And ultimately, everyone can already make use of >>>> this >>>> >>>> approach anyway. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> On 25/06/2019 08:02, Jark Wu wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jeff, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing the Zeppelin approach. I >>>> think it's a >>>> >>>> good idea to >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> leverage user's travis account. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> In this way, we can have almost unlimited >>>> concurrent build >>>> >>>> jobs and >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> developers can restart build by themselves >>>> (currently only >>>> >>>> committers >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> can restart PR's build). >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> But I'm still not very clear how to integrate >>>> user's >>>> >>>> travis build >>>> >>>> >> into >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> the Flink pull request's build automatically. >>>> Can you >>>> >>>> explain more in >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> detail? >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Another question: does travis only build >>>> branches for user >>>> >>>> account? >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> My concern is that builds for PRs will rebase >>>> user's >>>> >>>> commits against >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> current master branch. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> This will help us to find problems before >>>> merge. Builds >>>> >>>> for branches >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> will lose the impact of new commits in master. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> How does Zeppelin solve this problem? >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again for sharing the idea. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jark >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:01, Jeff Zhang >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Folks, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Zeppelin meet this kind of issue before, we solve >>>> >>>> it by >>>> >>>> >> delegating >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> each >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> one's PR build to his travis account >>>> (Everyone can >>>> >>>> have 5 free >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> slot for >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis build). >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Apache account travis build is only triggered >>>> when >>>> >>>> PR is merged. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Kurt Young <[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> 于2019年6月25日周二 上午10:16写道： >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > (Forgot to cc George) >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Best, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Kurt >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kurt Young >>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Hi Bowen, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Thanks for bringing this up. We >>>> actually have >>>> >>>> discussed >>>> >>>> >> about >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> this, and I >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > think Till and George have >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > already spend sometime investigating >>>> it. I have >>>> >>>> cced both of >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> them, and >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > maybe they can share >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > their findings. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Best, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Kurt >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:08 AM Jark Wu >>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Hi Bowen, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Thanks for bringing this. We also >>>> suffered from >>>> >>>> the long >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> build time. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I agree that we should focus on >>>> solving build >>>> >>>> capacity >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> problem in the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> thread. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> My observation is there is only one >>>> build is >>>> >>>> running, all >>>> >>>> >> the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> others >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> (other >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> PRs, master) are pending. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> The pricing plan[1] of travis shows >>>> it can >>>> >>>> support >>>> >>>> >> concurrent >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> build >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > jobs. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> But I don't know which plan we are >>>> using, might >>>> >>>> be the free >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan for >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > open >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> source. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I cc-ed Chesnay who may have some >>>> experience on >>>> >>>> Travis. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Jark >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> [1]: https://travis-ci.com/plans >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 08:11, Bowen Li < >>>> >>>> >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > Hi Steven, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > I think you may not read what I >>>> wrote. The >>>> >>>> discussion is >>>> >>>> >>>> about >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > "unstable >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > build **capacity**", in another word >>>> >>>> "unstable / lack of >>>> >>>> >>>> build >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> resources", >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > not "unstable build". >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:40 PM >>>> Steven Wu >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > long and sometimes unstable build is >>>> >>>> definitely a pain >>>> >>>> >>>>>> point. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > I suspect the build failure here in >>>> >>>> >> flink-connector-kafka >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> is not >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> related >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > to >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > my change. but there is no easy >>>> re-run the >>>> >>>> build on >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis UI. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > search showed a trick of >>>> close-and-open the >>>> >>>> PR will >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> trigger rebuild. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> but >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that could add noises to the PR >>>> activities. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/545555519 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > travis-ci for my personal repo >>>> often failed >>>> >>>> with >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> exceeding time >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > limit >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > after >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 4+ hours. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > The job exceeded the maximum time >>>> limit for >>>> >>>> jobs, and >>>> >>>> >> has >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> been >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > terminated. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:15 PM >>>> Bowen Li >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/549681530 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> This build >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > request >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > has >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > been sitting at **HEAD of the >>>> queue** >>>> >>>> since I first >>>> >>>> >> saw >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> it at PST >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 10:30am >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > (not sure how long it's been >>>> there before >>>> >>>> 10:30am). >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> It's PST >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > 4:12pm >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> now >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > and >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > it hasn't started yet. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:48 PM >>>> Bowen Li >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > Hi devs, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I've been experiencing the pain >>>> >>>> resulting from lack >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> of stable >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> build >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > capacity on Travis for Flink >>>> PRs [1]. >>>> >>>> >> Specifically, I >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> noticed >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> often >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > no >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build in the queue is making any >>>> >>>> progress for >>>> >>>> >> hours, >>>> >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > suddenly >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> 5 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > or >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 6 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > builds kick off all together >>>> after the >>>> >>>> long pause. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> I'm at PST >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > (UTC-08) >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > time >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > zone, and I've seen pause can >>>> be as >>>> >>>> long as 6 hours >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> from PST 9am >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> to >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 3pm >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > (let alone the time needed to >>>> drain the >>>> >>>> queue >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> afterwards). >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I think this has greatly >>>> impacted our >>>> >>>> productivity. >>>> >>>> >>>> I've >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> experienced >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > PRs submitted in the early >>>> morning of >>>> >>>> PST time zone >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> won't finish >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > their >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build until late night of the >>>> same day. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > So my questions are: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - Has anyone else experienced >>>> the same >>>> >>>> problem or >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> have similar >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > observation >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > on TravisCI? (I suspect it >>>> has things >>>> >>>> to do with >>>> >>>> >> time >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> zone) >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - What pricing plan of >>>> TravisCI is >>>> >>>> Flink currently >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> using? Is it >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > free >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > plan for open source >>>> projects? What >>>> >>>> are the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> guaranteed build >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> capacity >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > of >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > the current plan? >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - If the current pricing plan >>>> (either >>>> >>>> free or paid) >>>> >>>> >>>>>> can't >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > provide >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > stable >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build capacity, can we >>>> upgrade to a >>>> >>>> higher priced >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan with >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > larger >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > and >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > more >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > stable build capacity? >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > BTW, another factor that >>>> contribute to >>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> productivity problem >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > is >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > that >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > our build is slow - we run >>>> full build >>>> >>>> for every PR >>>> >>>> >>>> and a >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> successful >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > full >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build takes ~5h. We >>>> definitely have >>>> >>>> more options to >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> solve it, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > for >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > instance, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > modularize the build graphs >>>> and reuse >>>> >>>> artifacts >>>> >>>> >> from >>>> >>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > previous >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > build. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > But I think that can be a big >>>> effort >>>> >>>> which is much >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> harder to >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > accomplish >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > in >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > a short period of time and >>>> may deserve >>>> >>>> its own >>>> >>>> >>>> separate >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> discussion. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > [1] >>>> >>>> >> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/pull_requests >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jeff Zhang >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >>> >> |
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Migrate to sponsored Travis account
|
|
In reply to this post by Chesnay Schepler-3
I have temporarily re-enabled running PR builds on the ASF account;
migrating to the Travis subscription caused some issues in the bot that I have to fix first. On 07/07/2019 23:01, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > The vote has passed unanimously in favor of migrating to a separate > Travis account. > > I will now set things up such that no PullRequest is no longer run on > the ASF servers. > This is a major setup in reducing our usage of ASF resources. > For the time being we'll use free Travis plan for flink-ci (i.e. 5 > workers, which is the same the ASF gives us). Over the course of the > next week we'll setup the Ververica subscription to increase this limit. > > From now now, a bot will mirror all new and updated PullRequests to a > mirror repository (https://github.com/flink-ci/flink-ci) and write an > update into the PR once the build is complete. > I have ran the bots for the past 3 days in parallel to our existing > Travis and it was working without major issues. > > The biggest change that contributors will see is that there's no > longer a icon next to each commit. We may revisit this in the future. > > I'll setup a repo with the source of the bot later. > > On 04/07/2019 10:46, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >> I've raised a JIRA >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18703>with INFRA to >> inquire whether it would be possible to switch to a different Travis >> account, and if so what steps would need to be taken. >> We need a proper confirmation from INFRA since we are not in full >> control of the flink repository (for example, we cannot access the >> settings page). >> >> If this is indeed possible, Ververica is willing sponsor a Travis >> account for the Flink project. >> This would provide us with more than enough resources than we need. >> >> Since this makes the project more reliant on resources provided by >> external companies I would like to vote on this. >> >> Please vote on this proposal, as follows: >> [ ] +1, Approve the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis >> account, provided that INFRA approves >> [ ] -1, Do not approach the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis >> account >> >> The vote will be open for at least 24h, and until we have >> confirmation from INFRA. The voting period may be shorter than the >> usual 3 days since our current is effectively not working. >> >> On 04/07/2019 06:51, Bowen Li wrote: >>> Re: > Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to >>> an entirely different CI service? >>> >>> I reached out to Wes and Krisztián from Apache Arrow PMC. They are >>> currently moving away from ASF's Travis to their own in-house metal >>> machines at [1] with custom CI application at [2]. They've seen >>> significant improvement w.r.t both much higher performance and >>> basically no resource waiting time, "night-and-day" difference >>> quoting Wes. >>> >>> Re: > If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our >>> project, then this might be something we can do fairly quickly? >>> >>> I believe so, according to [3] and [4] >>> >>> >>> [1] https://ci.ursalabs.org/ <https://ci.ursalabs.org/#/> >>> [2] https://github.com/ursa-labs/ursabot >>> [3] >>> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration >>> >>> [4] >>> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-on-travis-ci-com >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:01 AM Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>> >>> Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to an >>> entirely different CI service? >>> >>> If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our >>> project, then >>> this might be something we can do fairly quickly? >>> >>> On 03/07/2019 05:55, Bowen Li wrote: >>> > I responded in the INFRA ticket [1] that I believe they are >>> using a wrong >>> > metric against Flink and the total build time is a completely >>> different >>> > thing than guaranteed build capacity. >>> > >>> > My response: >>> > >>> > "As mentioned above, since I started to pay attention to Flink's >>> build >>> > queue a few tens of days ago, I'm in Seattle and I saw no build >>> was kicking >>> > off in PST daytime in weekdays for Flink. Our teammates in China >>> and Europe >>> > have also reported similar observations. So we need to evaluate >>> how the >>> > large total build time came from - if 1) your number and 2) our >>> > observations from three locations that cover pretty much a full >>> day, are >>> > all true, I **guess** one reason can be that - highly likely the >>> extra >>> > build time came from weekends when other Apache projects may be >>> idle and >>> > Flink just drains hard its congested queue. >>> > >>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack of >>> resources >>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, >>> dedicated** >>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even if >>> no build is >>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head >>> in PST >>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an absurd >>> amount of >>> > waiting time. >>> > >>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system and >>> grants >>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for >>> Flink, that'll >>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. >>> > >>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack of >>> resources >>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, >>> dedicated** >>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even if >>> no build is >>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head >>> in PST >>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an absurd >>> amount of >>> > waiting time. >>> > >>> > >>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system and >>> grants >>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for >>> Flink, that'll >>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. >>> > >>> > I feel what's missing in the ASF INFRA's Travis resource pool is >>> some level >>> > of build capacity SLAs and certainty" >>> > >>> > >>> > Again, I believe there are differences in nature of these two >>> problems, >>> > long build time v.s. lack of dedicated build resource. That's >>> saying, >>> > shortening build time may relieve the situation, and may not. >>> I'm sightly >>> > negative on disabling IT cases for PRs, due to the downside is >>> that we are >>> > at risk of any potential bugs in PR that UTs doesn't catch, and >>> may cost a >>> > lot more to fix and if it slows others down or even block >>> others, but am >>> > open to others opinions on it. >>> > >>> > AFAICT from INFRA ticket[1], donating to ASF INFRA won't be >>> feasible to >>> > solve our problem since INFRA's pool is fully shared and they >>> have no >>> > control and finer insights over resource allocation to a >>> specific Apache >>> > project. As mentioned in [1], Apache Arrow is moving away from >>> ASF INFRA >>> > Travis pool (they are actually surprised Flink hasn't plan to do >>> so). I >>> > know that Spark is on its own build infra. If we all agree that >>> funding our >>> > own build infra, I'd be glad to help investigate any potential >>> options >>> > after releasing 1.9 since I'm super busy with 1.9 now. >>> > >>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:46 AM Chesnay Schepler >>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> As a short-term stopgap, since we can assume this issue to >>> become much >>> >> worse in the following days/weeks, we could disable IT cases in >>> PRs and >>> >> only run them on master. >>> >> >>> >> On 02/07/2019 12:03, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >>> >>> People really have to stop thinking that just because >>> something works >>> >>> for us it is also a good solution. >>> >>> Also, please remember that our builds run for 2h from start to >>> finish, >>> >>> and not the 14 _minutes_ it takes for zeppelin. >>> >>> We are dealing with an entirely different scale here, both in >>> terms of >>> >>> build times and number of builds. >>> >>> >>> >>> In this very thread people have been complaining about long >>> queue >>> >>> times for their builds. Surprise, other Apache projects have >>> been >>> >>> suffering the very same thing due to us not controlling our >>> build >>> >>> times. While switching services (be it Jenkins, CircleCI or >>> whatever) >>> >>> will possibly work for us (and these options are actually >>> attractive, >>> >>> like CircleCI's proper support for build artifacts), it will >>> also >>> >>> result in us likely negatively affecting other projects in >>> significant >>> >>> ways. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sure, the Jenkins setup has a good user experience for us, at >>> the cost >>> >>> of blocking Jenkins workers for a _lot_ of time. Right now we >>> have 25 >>> >>> PR's in our queue; that's possibly 50h we'd consume of Jenkins >>> >>> resources, and the European contributors haven't even really >>> started yet. >>> >>> >>> >>> FYI, the latest INFRA response from INFRA-18533: >>> >>> >>> >>> "Our rough metrics shows that Flink used over 5800 hours of >>> build time >>> >>> last month. That is equal to EIGHT servers running 24/7 for >>> the ENTIRE >>> >>> MONTH. EIGHT. nonstop. >>> >>> When we discovered this last night, we discussed it some and >>> are going >>> >>> to tune down Flink to allow only five executors maximum. We >>> cannot >>> >>> allow Flink to consume so much of a Foundation shared >>> resource." >>> >>> >>> >>> So yes, we either >>> >>> a) have to heavily reduce our CI usage or >>> >>> b) fund our own, either maintaining it ourselves or donating >>> to Apache. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 02/07/2019 05:11, Bowen Li wrote: >>> >>>> By looking at the git history of the Jenkins script, its core >>> part >>> >>>> was finished in March 2017 (and only two minor update in >>> 2017/2018), >>> >>>> so it's been running for over two years now and feels like >>> Zepplin >>> >>>> community has been quite happy with it. @Jeff Zhang >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> can you >>> share your insights and user >>> >>>> experience with the Jenkins+Travis approach? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Things like: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> - has the approach completely solved the resource capacity >>> problem >>> >>>> for Zepplin community? is Zepplin community happy with the >>> result? >>> >>>> - is the whole configuration chain stable (e.g. uptime) >>> enough? >>> >>>> - how often do you need to maintain the Jenkins infra? how >>> many >>> >>>> people are usually involved in maintenance and bug-fixes? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> The downside of this approach seems mostly to be on the >>> maintenance >>> >>>> to me - maintain the script and Jenkins infra. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> ** Having Our Own Travis-CI.com Account ** >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Another alternative I've been thinking of is to have our own >>> >>>> travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> <http://travis-ci.com> >>> account with paid dedicated >>> >>>> resources. Note travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> >>> <http://travis-ci.org> is the free >>> >>>> version and travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> >>> <http://travis-ci.com> is the commercial >>> >>>> version. We currently use a shared resource pool managed by >>> ASK INFRA >>> >>>> team on travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> >>> <http://travis-ci.org>, but we have no control >>> >>>> over it - we can't see how it's configured, how much >>> resources are >>> >>>> available, how resources are allocated among Apache projects, >>> etc. >>> >>>> The nice thing about having an account on travis-ci.com >>> <http://travis-ci.com> >>> >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> are: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> - relatively low cost with much better resource guarantee >>> than what >>> >>>> we currently have [1]: $249/month with 5 dedicated >>> concurrency, >>> >>>> $489/month with 10 concurrency >>> >>>> - low maintenance work compared to using Jenkins >>> >>>> - (potentially) no migration cost according to Travis's doc >>> [2] >>> >>>> (pending verification) >>> >>>> - full control over the build capacity/configuration >>> compared to >>> >>>> using ASF INFRA's pool >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I'd be surprised if we as such a vibrant community cannot >>> find and >>> >>>> fund $249*12=$2988 a year in exchange for a much better >>> developer >>> >>>> experience and much higher productivity. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> [1] https://travis-ci.com/plans >>> >>>> [2] >>> >>>> >>> >> >>> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration >>> >>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM Chesnay Schepler >>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> So yes, the Jenkins job keeps pulling the state from >>> Travis until it >>> >>>> finishes. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Note sure I'm comfortable with the idea of using Jenkins >>> workers >>> >>>> just to >>> >>>> idle for a several hours. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On 29/06/2019 14:56, Jeff Zhang wrote: >>> >>>> > Here's what zeppelin community did, we make a python >>> script to >>> >>>> check the >>> >>>> > build status of pull request. >>> >>>> > Here's script: >>> >>>> > >>> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/travis_check.py >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > And this is the script we used in Jenkins build job. >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > if [ -f "travis_check.py" ]; then >>> >>>> > git log -n 1 >>> >>>> > STATUS=$(curl -s $BUILD_URL | grep -e "GitHub pull >>> >>>> request.*from.*" | sed >>> >>>> > 's/.*GitHub pull request <a >>> >>>> > href=\"\(https[^"]*\).*from[^"]*.\(https[^"]*\).*/\1 >>> \2/g') >>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(echo $STATUS | sed 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') >>> >>>> > PR=$(echo $STATUS | awk '{print $1}' | sed >>> >>>> 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') >>> >>>> > #COMMIT=$(git log -n 1 | grep "^Merge:" | awk >>> '{print $3}') >>> >>>> > #if [ -z $COMMIT ]; then >>> >>>> > # COMMIT=$(curl -s >>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR >>> >>>> > | grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | >>> tr '\n' ' ' >>> >>>> | sed >>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = '\n' | >>> grep -v >>> >>>> "apache:" | >>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') >>> >>>> > #fi >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > # get commit hash from PR >>> >>>> > COMMIT=$(curl -s >>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR | >>> >>>> > grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | tr >>> '\n' ' ' >>> >>>> | sed >>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = '\n' | >>> grep -v >>> >>>> "apache:" | >>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') >>> >>>> > sleep 30 # sleep few moment to wait travis starts >>> the build >>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 >>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || >>> RET_CODE=$? >>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # try with repository >>> name when >>> >>>> travis-ci is >>> >>>> > not available in the account >>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 >>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(curl -s >>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR >>> >>>> > | grep '"full_name":' | grep -v "apache/zeppelin" | sed >>> >>>> > 's/.*[:][^"]*["]\([^/]*\).*/\1/g') >>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || >>> RET_CODE=$? >>> >>>> > fi >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # fail with can't find >>> build >>> >>>> information in >>> >>>> > the travis >>> >>>> > set +x >>> >>>> > echo >>> "-----------------------------------------------------" >>> >>>> > echo "Looks like travis-ci is not configured for >>> your fork." >>> >>>> > echo "Please setup by swich on 'zeppelin' >>> repository at >>> >>>> > https://travis-ci.org/profile and travis-ci." >>> >>>> > echo "And then make sure 'Build branch updates' >>> option is >>> >>>> enabled in >>> >>>> > the settings >>> https://travis-ci.org/${AUTHOR}/zeppelin/settings >>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings> >>> >>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings>." >>> >>>> > echo "" >>> >>>> > echo "To trigger CI after setup, you will need >>> ammend your >>> >>>> last commit >>> >>>> > with" >>> >>>> > echo "git commit --amend" >>> >>>> > echo "git push your-remote HEAD --force" >>> >>>> > echo "" >>> >>>> > echo "See >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> >>> >> >>> http://zeppelin.apache.org/contribution/contributions.html#continuous-integration >>> >>> >>>> > ." >>> >>>> > fi >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > exit $RET_CODE >>> >>>> > else >>> >>>> > set +x >>> >>>> > echo "travis_check.py does not exists" >>> >>>> > exit 1 >>> >>>> > fi >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>> 于2019年6月29日周六 下午3:17写道： >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> >> Does this imply that a Jenkins job is active as long >>> as the >>> >>>> Travis build >>> >>>> >> runs? >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> On 26/06/2019 21:28, Bowen Li wrote: >>> >>>> >>> Hi, >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> @Dawid, I think the "long test running" as I >>> mentioned in the >>> >>>> first >>> >>>> >> email, >>> >>>> >>> also as you guys said, belongs to "a big effort >>> which is much >>> >>>> harder to >>> >>>> >>> accomplish in a short period of time and may deserve >>> its own >>> >>>> separate >>> >>>> >>> discussion". Thus I didn't include it in what we can >>> do in a >>> >>>> foreseeable >>> >>>> >>> short term. >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> Besides, I don't think that's the ultimate reason >>> for lack of >>> >>>> build >>> >>>> >>> resources. Even if the build is shortened to >>> something like >>> >>>> 2h, the >>> >>>> >>> problems of no build machine works about 6 or more >>> hours in >>> >>>> PST daytime >>> >>>> >>> that I described will still happen, because no >>> machine from >>> >>>> ASF INFRA's >>> >>>> >>> pool is allocated to Flink. As I have paid close >>> attention to >>> >>>> the build >>> >>>> >>> queue in the past few weekdays, it's a pretty clear >>> pattern now. >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> **The ultimate root cause** for that is - we don't >>> have any >>> >>>> **dedicated** >>> >>>> >>> build resources that we can stably rely on. I'm >>> actually ok to >>> >>>> wait for a >>> >>>> >>> long time if there are build requests running, it >>> means at >>> >>>> least we are >>> >>>> >>> making progress. But I'm not ok with no build >>> resource. A >>> >>>> better place I >>> >>>> >>> think we should aim at in short term is to always >>> have at >>> >>>> least a central >>> >>>> >>> pool (can be 3 or 5) of machines dedicated to build >>> Flink at >>> >>>> any time, or >>> >>>> >>> maybe use users resources. >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> @Chesnay @Robert I synced with Jeff offline that >>> Zeppelin >>> >>>> community is >>> >>>> >>> using a Jenkins job to automatically build on users' >>> travis >>> >>>> account and >>> >>>> >>> link the result back to github PR. I guess the >>> Jenkins job >>> >>>> would fetch >>> >>>> >>> latest upstream master and build the PR against it. >>> Jeff has >>> >>>> filed >>> >>>> >> tickets >>> >>>> >>> to learn and get access to the Jenkins infra. It'll >>> better to >>> >>>> fully >>> >>>> >>> understand it first before judging this approach. >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> I also heard good things about CircleCI, and ASF >>> INFRA seems >>> >>>> to have a >>> >>>> >> pool >>> >>>> >>> of build capacity there too. Can be an alternative >>> to consider. >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:44 AM Dawid Wysakowicz < >>> >>>> >> [hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>> >>>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Sorry to jump in late, but I think Bowen missed the >>> most >>> >>>> important point >>> >>>> >>>> from Chesnay's previous message in the summary. The >>> ultimate >>> >>>> reason for >>> >>>> >>>> all the problems is that the tests take close to 2 >>> hours to >>> >>>> run already. >>> >>>> >>>> I fully support this claim: "Unless people start >>> caring about >>> >>>> test times >>> >>>> >>>> before adding them, this issue cannot be solved" >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> This is also another reason why using user's Travis >>> account >>> >>>> won't help. >>> >>>> >>>> Every few weeks we reach the user's time limit for >>> a single >>> >>>> profile. >>> >>>> >>>> This makes the user's builds simply fail, until we >>> either >>> >>>> properly >>> >>>> >>>> decrease the time the tests take (which I am not >>> sure we ever >>> >>>> did) or >>> >>>> >>>> postpone the problem by splitting into more >>> profiles. (Note >>> >>>> that the ASF >>> >>>> >>>> Travis account has higher time limits) >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> Dawid >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> On 26/06/2019 09:36, Robert Metzger wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> Do we know if using "the best" available hardware >>> would >>> >>>> improve the >>> >>>> >> build >>> >>>> >>>>> times? >>> >>>> >>>>> Imagine we would run the build on machines with >>> plenty of >>> >>>> main memory >>> >>>> >> to >>> >>>> >>>>> mount everything to ramdisk + the latest CPU >>> architecture? >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>> Throwing hardware at the problem could help reduce >>> the time >>> >>>> of an >>> >>>> >>>>> individual build, and using our own infrastructure >>> would >>> >>>> remove our >>> >>>> >>>>> dependency on Apache's Travis account (with the >>> obvious >>> >>>> downside of >>> >>>> >>>> having >>> >>>> >>>>> to maintain the infrastructure) >>> >>>> >>>>> We could use an open source travis alternative, to >>> have a >>> >>>> similar >>> >>>> >>>>> experience and make the migration easy. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:34 AM Chesnay Schepler >>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>>> >From what I gathered, there's no special >>> sauce that the >>> >>>> Zeppelin >>> >>>> >>>>>> project uses which actually integrates a users >>> Travis >>> >>>> account into the >>> >>>> >>>> PR. >>> >>>> >>>>>> They just disabled Travis for PRs. And that's >>> kind of it. >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> Naturally we can do this (duh) and safe the ASF a >>> fair >>> >>>> amount of >>> >>>> >>>>>> resources, but there are downsides: >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> The discoverability of the Travis check takes a >>> nose-dive. >>> >>>> Either we >>> >>>> >>>>>> require every contributor to always, an every >>> commit, also >>> >>>> post a >>> >>>> >> Travis >>> >>>> >>>>>> build, or we have the reviewer sift through the >>> >>>> contributors account >>> >>>> >> to >>> >>>> >>>>>> find it. >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> This is rather cumbersome. Additionally, it's >>> also not >>> >>>> equivalent to >>> >>>> >>>>>> having a PR build. >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> A normal branch build takes a branch as is and >>> tests it. A >>> >>>> PR build >>> >>>> >>>>>> merges the branch into master, and then runs it. >>> (Fun fact: >>> >>>> This is >>> >>>> >> why >>> >>>> >>>>>> a PR without merge conflicts is not being run on >>> Travis.) >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> And ultimately, everyone can already make use >>> of this >>> >>>> approach anyway. >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> On 25/06/2019 08:02, Jark Wu wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jeff, >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing the Zeppelin approach. I >>> think it's a >>> >>>> good idea to >>> >>>> >>>>>>> leverage user's travis account. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> In this way, we can have almost unlimited >>> concurrent build >>> >>>> jobs and >>> >>>> >>>>>>> developers can restart build by themselves >>> (currently only >>> >>>> committers >>> >>>> >>>>>>> can restart PR's build). >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> But I'm still not very clear how to integrate >>> user's >>> >>>> travis build >>> >>>> >> into >>> >>>> >>>>>>> the Flink pull request's build automatically. >>> Can you >>> >>>> explain more in >>> >>>> >>>>>>> detail? >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Another question: does travis only build >>> branches for user >>> >>>> account? >>> >>>> >>>>>>> My concern is that builds for PRs will rebase >>> user's >>> >>>> commits against >>> >>>> >>>>>>> current master branch. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> This will help us to find problems before >>> merge. Builds >>> >>>> for branches >>> >>>> >>>>>>> will lose the impact of new commits in master. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> How does Zeppelin solve this problem? >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again for sharing the idea. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jark >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:01, Jeff Zhang >>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Folks, >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Zeppelin meet this kind of issue before, we >>> solve >>> >>>> it by >>> >>>> >> delegating >>> >>>> >>>>>>> each >>> >>>> >>>>>>> one's PR build to his travis account >>> (Everyone can >>> >>>> have 5 free >>> >>>> >>>>>>> slot for >>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis build). >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Apache account travis build is only triggered >>> when >>> >>>> PR is merged. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Kurt Young <[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> 于2019年6月25日周二 上午10:16写道： >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > (Forgot to cc George) >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Best, >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Kurt >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kurt Young >>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>> >>>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Hi Bowen, >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Thanks for bringing this up. We >>> actually have >>> >>>> discussed >>> >>>> >> about >>> >>>> >>>>>>> this, and I >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > think Till and George have >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > already spend sometime investigating >>> it. I have >>> >>>> cced both of >>> >>>> >>>>>>> them, and >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > maybe they can share >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > their findings. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Best, >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Kurt >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:08 AM Jark Wu >>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>> >>>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Hi Bowen, >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Thanks for bringing this. We also >>> suffered from >>> >>>> the long >>> >>>> >>>>>>> build time. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I agree that we should focus on >>> solving build >>> >>>> capacity >>> >>>> >>>>>>> problem in the >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> thread. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> My observation is there is only one >>> build is >>> >>>> running, all >>> >>>> >> the >>> >>>> >>>>>>> others >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> (other >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> PRs, master) are pending. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> The pricing plan[1] of travis shows >>> it can >>> >>>> support >>> >>>> >> concurrent >>> >>>> >>>>>>> build >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > jobs. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> But I don't know which plan we are >>> using, might >>> >>>> be the free >>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan for >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > open >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> source. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I cc-ed Chesnay who may have some >>> experience on >>> >>>> Travis. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Regards, >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Jark >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> [1]: https://travis-ci.com/plans >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 08:11, Bowen Li < >>> >>>> >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > Hi Steven, >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > I think you may not read what I >>> wrote. The >>> >>>> discussion is >>> >>>> >>>> about >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > "unstable >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > build **capacity**", in another word >>> >>>> "unstable / lack of >>> >>>> >>>> build >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> resources", >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > not "unstable build". >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:40 PM >>> Steven Wu >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > long and sometimes unstable build is >>> >>>> definitely a pain >>> >>>> >>>>>> point. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > I suspect the build failure here in >>> >>>> >> flink-connector-kafka >>> >>>> >>>>>>> is not >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> related >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > to >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > my change. but there is no easy >>> re-run the >>> >>>> build on >>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis UI. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > search showed a trick of >>> close-and-open the >>> >>>> PR will >>> >>>> >>>>>>> trigger rebuild. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> but >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that could add noises to the PR >>> activities. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/545555519 >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > travis-ci for my personal repo >>> often failed >>> >>>> with >>> >>>> >>>>>>> exceeding time >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > limit >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > after >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 4+ hours. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > The job exceeded the maximum time >>> limit for >>> >>>> jobs, and >>> >>>> >> has >>> >>>> >>>>>>> been >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > terminated. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:15 PM >>> Bowen Li >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/549681530 >>> >>>> >>>>>>> This build >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > request >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > has >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > been sitting at **HEAD of the >>> queue** >>> >>>> since I first >>> >>>> >> saw >>> >>>> >>>>>>> it at PST >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 10:30am >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > (not sure how long it's been >>> there before >>> >>>> 10:30am). >>> >>>> >>>>>>> It's PST >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > 4:12pm >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> now >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > and >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > it hasn't started yet. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:48 PM >>> Bowen Li >>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > Hi devs, >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I've been experiencing the pain >>> >>>> resulting from lack >>> >>>> >>>>>>> of stable >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> build >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > capacity on Travis for Flink >>> PRs [1]. >>> >>>> >> Specifically, I >>> >>>> >>>>>>> noticed >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> often >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > no >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build in the queue is making any >>> >>>> progress for >>> >>>> >> hours, >>> >>>> >>>> and >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > suddenly >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> 5 >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > or >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 6 >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > builds kick off all together >>> after the >>> >>>> long pause. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> I'm at PST >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > (UTC-08) >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > time >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > zone, and I've seen pause can >>> be as >>> >>>> long as 6 hours >>> >>>> >>>>>>> from PST 9am >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> to >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 3pm >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > (let alone the time needed to >>> drain the >>> >>>> queue >>> >>>> >>>>>>> afterwards). >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I think this has greatly >>> impacted our >>> >>>> productivity. >>> >>>> >>>> I've >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> experienced >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > PRs submitted in the early >>> morning of >>> >>>> PST time zone >>> >>>> >>>>>>> won't finish >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > their >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build until late night of the >>> same day. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > So my questions are: >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - Has anyone else experienced >>> the same >>> >>>> problem or >>> >>>> >>>>>>> have similar >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > observation >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > on TravisCI? (I suspect it >>> has things >>> >>>> to do with >>> >>>> >> time >>> >>>> >>>>>>> zone) >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - What pricing plan of >>> TravisCI is >>> >>>> Flink currently >>> >>>> >>>>>>> using? Is it >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> the >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > free >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > plan for open source >>> projects? What >>> >>>> are the >>> >>>> >>>>>>> guaranteed build >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> capacity >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > of >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > the current plan? >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - If the current pricing plan >>> (either >>> >>>> free or paid) >>> >>>> >>>>>> can't >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > provide >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > stable >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build capacity, can we >>> upgrade to a >>> >>>> higher priced >>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan with >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > larger >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > and >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > more >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > stable build capacity? >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > BTW, another factor that >>> contribute to >>> >>>> the >>> >>>> >>>>>>> productivity problem >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > is >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > that >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > our build is slow - we run >>> full build >>> >>>> for every PR >>> >>>> >>>> and a >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> successful >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > full >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build takes ~5h. We >>> definitely have >>> >>>> more options to >>> >>>> >>>>>>> solve it, >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > for >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > instance, >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > modularize the build graphs >>> and reuse >>> >>>> artifacts >>> >>>> >> from >>> >>>> >>>> the >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > previous >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > build. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > But I think that can be a big >>> effort >>> >>>> which is much >>> >>>> >>>>>>> harder to >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > accomplish >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > in >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > a short period of time and >>> may deserve >>> >>>> its own >>> >>>> >>>> separate >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> discussion. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > [1] >>> >>>> >> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/pull_requests >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> -- >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jeff Zhang >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> > > |
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Migrate to sponsored Travis account
|
|
The kinks have been worked out; the bot is running again and pr builds
are yet again no longer running on ASF resources. PRs are mirrored to: https://github.com/flink-ci/flink Bot source: https://github.com/flink-ci/ci-bot On 08/07/2019 17:14, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > I have temporarily re-enabled running PR builds on the ASF account; > migrating to the Travis subscription caused some issues in the bot > that I have to fix first. > > On 07/07/2019 23:01, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >> The vote has passed unanimously in favor of migrating to a separate >> Travis account. >> >> I will now set things up such that no PullRequest is no longer run on >> the ASF servers. >> This is a major setup in reducing our usage of ASF resources. >> For the time being we'll use free Travis plan for flink-ci (i.e. 5 >> workers, which is the same the ASF gives us). Over the course of the >> next week we'll setup the Ververica subscription to increase this limit. >> >> From now now, a bot will mirror all new and updated PullRequests to a >> mirror repository (https://github.com/flink-ci/flink-ci) and write an >> update into the PR once the build is complete. >> I have ran the bots for the past 3 days in parallel to our existing >> Travis and it was working without major issues. >> >> The biggest change that contributors will see is that there's no >> longer a icon next to each commit. We may revisit this in the future. >> >> I'll setup a repo with the source of the bot later. >> >> On 04/07/2019 10:46, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >>> I've raised a JIRA >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18703>with INFRA to >>> inquire whether it would be possible to switch to a different Travis >>> account, and if so what steps would need to be taken. >>> We need a proper confirmation from INFRA since we are not in full >>> control of the flink repository (for example, we cannot access the >>> settings page). >>> >>> If this is indeed possible, Ververica is willing sponsor a Travis >>> account for the Flink project. >>> This would provide us with more than enough resources than we need. >>> >>> Since this makes the project more reliant on resources provided by >>> external companies I would like to vote on this. >>> >>> Please vote on this proposal, as follows: >>> [ ] +1, Approve the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis >>> account, provided that INFRA approves >>> [ ] -1, Do not approach the migration to a Ververica-sponsored >>> Travis account >>> >>> The vote will be open for at least 24h, and until we have >>> confirmation from INFRA. The voting period may be shorter than the >>> usual 3 days since our current is effectively not working. >>> >>> On 04/07/2019 06:51, Bowen Li wrote: >>>> Re: > Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to >>>> an entirely different CI service? >>>> >>>> I reached out to Wes and Krisztián from Apache Arrow PMC. They are >>>> currently moving away from ASF's Travis to their own in-house metal >>>> machines at [1] with custom CI application at [2]. They've seen >>>> significant improvement w.r.t both much higher performance and >>>> basically no resource waiting time, "night-and-day" difference >>>> quoting Wes. >>>> >>>> Re: > If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our >>>> project, then this might be something we can do fairly quickly? >>>> >>>> I believe so, according to [3] and [4] >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] https://ci.ursalabs.org/ <https://ci.ursalabs.org/#/> >>>> [2] https://github.com/ursa-labs/ursabot >>>> [3] >>>> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration >>>> >>>> [4] >>>> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-on-travis-ci-com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:01 AM Chesnay Schepler >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to an >>>> entirely different CI service? >>>> >>>> If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our >>>> project, then >>>> this might be something we can do fairly quickly? >>>> >>>> On 03/07/2019 05:55, Bowen Li wrote: >>>> > I responded in the INFRA ticket [1] that I believe they are >>>> using a wrong >>>> > metric against Flink and the total build time is a completely >>>> different >>>> > thing than guaranteed build capacity. >>>> > >>>> > My response: >>>> > >>>> > "As mentioned above, since I started to pay attention to Flink's >>>> build >>>> > queue a few tens of days ago, I'm in Seattle and I saw no build >>>> was kicking >>>> > off in PST daytime in weekdays for Flink. Our teammates in China >>>> and Europe >>>> > have also reported similar observations. So we need to evaluate >>>> how the >>>> > large total build time came from - if 1) your number and 2) our >>>> > observations from three locations that cover pretty much a full >>>> day, are >>>> > all true, I **guess** one reason can be that - highly likely the >>>> extra >>>> > build time came from weekends when other Apache projects may be >>>> idle and >>>> > Flink just drains hard its congested queue. >>>> > >>>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack of >>>> resources >>>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, >>>> dedicated** >>>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even if >>>> no build is >>>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head >>>> in PST >>>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an absurd >>>> amount of >>>> > waiting time. >>>> > >>>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system and >>>> grants >>>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for >>>> Flink, that'll >>>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. >>>> > >>>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack of >>>> resources >>>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, >>>> dedicated** >>>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even if >>>> no build is >>>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head >>>> in PST >>>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an absurd >>>> amount of >>>> > waiting time. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system and >>>> grants >>>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for >>>> Flink, that'll >>>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. >>>> > >>>> > I feel what's missing in the ASF INFRA's Travis resource pool is >>>> some level >>>> > of build capacity SLAs and certainty" >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Again, I believe there are differences in nature of these two >>>> problems, >>>> > long build time v.s. lack of dedicated build resource. That's >>>> saying, >>>> > shortening build time may relieve the situation, and may not. >>>> I'm sightly >>>> > negative on disabling IT cases for PRs, due to the downside is >>>> that we are >>>> > at risk of any potential bugs in PR that UTs doesn't catch, and >>>> may cost a >>>> > lot more to fix and if it slows others down or even block >>>> others, but am >>>> > open to others opinions on it. >>>> > >>>> > AFAICT from INFRA ticket[1], donating to ASF INFRA won't be >>>> feasible to >>>> > solve our problem since INFRA's pool is fully shared and they >>>> have no >>>> > control and finer insights over resource allocation to a >>>> specific Apache >>>> > project. As mentioned in [1], Apache Arrow is moving away from >>>> ASF INFRA >>>> > Travis pool (they are actually surprised Flink hasn't plan to do >>>> so). I >>>> > know that Spark is on its own build infra. If we all agree that >>>> funding our >>>> > own build infra, I'd be glad to help investigate any potential >>>> options >>>> > after releasing 1.9 since I'm super busy with 1.9 now. >>>> > >>>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:46 AM Chesnay Schepler >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> As a short-term stopgap, since we can assume this issue to >>>> become much >>>> >> worse in the following days/weeks, we could disable IT cases in >>>> PRs and >>>> >> only run them on master. >>>> >> >>>> >> On 02/07/2019 12:03, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >>>> >>> People really have to stop thinking that just because >>>> something works >>>> >>> for us it is also a good solution. >>>> >>> Also, please remember that our builds run for 2h from start to >>>> finish, >>>> >>> and not the 14 _minutes_ it takes for zeppelin. >>>> >>> We are dealing with an entirely different scale here, both in >>>> terms of >>>> >>> build times and number of builds. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> In this very thread people have been complaining about long >>>> queue >>>> >>> times for their builds. Surprise, other Apache projects >>>> have been >>>> >>> suffering the very same thing due to us not controlling our >>>> build >>>> >>> times. While switching services (be it Jenkins, CircleCI or >>>> whatever) >>>> >>> will possibly work for us (and these options are actually >>>> attractive, >>>> >>> like CircleCI's proper support for build artifacts), it >>>> will also >>>> >>> result in us likely negatively affecting other projects in >>>> significant >>>> >>> ways. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Sure, the Jenkins setup has a good user experience for us, at >>>> the cost >>>> >>> of blocking Jenkins workers for a _lot_ of time. Right now we >>>> have 25 >>>> >>> PR's in our queue; that's possibly 50h we'd consume of Jenkins >>>> >>> resources, and the European contributors haven't even really >>>> started yet. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> FYI, the latest INFRA response from INFRA-18533: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> "Our rough metrics shows that Flink used over 5800 hours of >>>> build time >>>> >>> last month. That is equal to EIGHT servers running 24/7 for >>>> the ENTIRE >>>> >>> MONTH. EIGHT. nonstop. >>>> >>> When we discovered this last night, we discussed it some and >>>> are going >>>> >>> to tune down Flink to allow only five executors maximum. We >>>> cannot >>>> >>> allow Flink to consume so much of a Foundation shared >>>> resource." >>>> >>> >>>> >>> So yes, we either >>>> >>> a) have to heavily reduce our CI usage or >>>> >>> b) fund our own, either maintaining it ourselves or donating >>>> to Apache. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On 02/07/2019 05:11, Bowen Li wrote: >>>> >>>> By looking at the git history of the Jenkins script, its core >>>> part >>>> >>>> was finished in March 2017 (and only two minor update in >>>> 2017/2018), >>>> >>>> so it's been running for over two years now and feels like >>>> Zepplin >>>> >>>> community has been quite happy with it. @Jeff Zhang >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> can you >>>> share your insights and user >>>> >>>> experience with the Jenkins+Travis approach? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Things like: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - has the approach completely solved the resource capacity >>>> problem >>>> >>>> for Zepplin community? is Zepplin community happy with the >>>> result? >>>> >>>> - is the whole configuration chain stable (e.g. uptime) >>>> enough? >>>> >>>> - how often do you need to maintain the Jenkins infra? how >>>> many >>>> >>>> people are usually involved in maintenance and bug-fixes? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The downside of this approach seems mostly to be on the >>>> maintenance >>>> >>>> to me - maintain the script and Jenkins infra. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ** Having Our Own Travis-CI.com Account ** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Another alternative I've been thinking of is to have our own >>>> >>>> travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> <http://travis-ci.com> >>>> account with paid dedicated >>>> >>>> resources. Note travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> >>>> <http://travis-ci.org> is the free >>>> >>>> version and travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> is the commercial >>>> >>>> version. We currently use a shared resource pool managed by >>>> ASK INFRA >>>> >>>> team on travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> >>>> <http://travis-ci.org>, but we have no control >>>> >>>> over it - we can't see how it's configured, how much >>>> resources are >>>> >>>> available, how resources are allocated among Apache projects, >>>> etc. >>>> >>>> The nice thing about having an account on travis-ci.com >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> >>>> >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> are: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - relatively low cost with much better resource guarantee >>>> than what >>>> >>>> we currently have [1]: $249/month with 5 dedicated >>>> concurrency, >>>> >>>> $489/month with 10 concurrency >>>> >>>> - low maintenance work compared to using Jenkins >>>> >>>> - (potentially) no migration cost according to Travis's >>>> doc [2] >>>> >>>> (pending verification) >>>> >>>> - full control over the build capacity/configuration >>>> compared to >>>> >>>> using ASF INFRA's pool >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'd be surprised if we as such a vibrant community cannot >>>> find and >>>> >>>> fund $249*12=$2988 a year in exchange for a much better >>>> developer >>>> >>>> experience and much higher productivity. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] https://travis-ci.com/plans >>>> >>>> [2] >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM Chesnay Schepler >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So yes, the Jenkins job keeps pulling the state from >>>> Travis until it >>>> >>>> finishes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Note sure I'm comfortable with the idea of using Jenkins >>>> workers >>>> >>>> just to >>>> >>>> idle for a several hours. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29/06/2019 14:56, Jeff Zhang wrote: >>>> >>>> > Here's what zeppelin community did, we make a python >>>> script to >>>> >>>> check the >>>> >>>> > build status of pull request. >>>> >>>> > Here's script: >>>> >>>> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/travis_check.py >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > And this is the script we used in Jenkins build job. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > if [ -f "travis_check.py" ]; then >>>> >>>> > git log -n 1 >>>> >>>> > STATUS=$(curl -s $BUILD_URL | grep -e "GitHub pull >>>> >>>> request.*from.*" | sed >>>> >>>> > 's/.*GitHub pull request <a >>>> >>>> > href=\"\(https[^"]*\).*from[^"]*.\(https[^"]*\).*/\1 >>>> \2/g') >>>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(echo $STATUS | sed 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') >>>> >>>> > PR=$(echo $STATUS | awk '{print $1}' | sed >>>> >>>> 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') >>>> >>>> > #COMMIT=$(git log -n 1 | grep "^Merge:" | awk >>>> '{print $3}') >>>> >>>> > #if [ -z $COMMIT ]; then >>>> >>>> > # COMMIT=$(curl -s >>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR >>>> >>>> > | grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | >>>> tr '\n' ' ' >>>> >>>> | sed >>>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = '\n' | >>>> grep -v >>>> >>>> "apache:" | >>>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') >>>> >>>> > #fi >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > # get commit hash from PR >>>> >>>> > COMMIT=$(curl -s >>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR | >>>> >>>> > grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | tr >>>> '\n' ' ' >>>> >>>> | sed >>>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = '\n' | >>>> grep -v >>>> >>>> "apache:" | >>>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') >>>> >>>> > sleep 30 # sleep few moment to wait travis starts >>>> the build >>>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 >>>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || >>>> RET_CODE=$? >>>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # try with repository >>>> name when >>>> >>>> travis-ci is >>>> >>>> > not available in the account >>>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 >>>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(curl -s >>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR >>>> >>>> > | grep '"full_name":' | grep -v "apache/zeppelin" | >>>> sed >>>> >>>> > 's/.*[:][^"]*["]\([^/]*\).*/\1/g') >>>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || >>>> RET_CODE=$? >>>> >>>> > fi >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # fail with can't find >>>> build >>>> >>>> information in >>>> >>>> > the travis >>>> >>>> > set +x >>>> >>>> > echo >>>> "-----------------------------------------------------" >>>> >>>> > echo "Looks like travis-ci is not configured for >>>> your fork." >>>> >>>> > echo "Please setup by swich on 'zeppelin' >>>> repository at >>>> >>>> > https://travis-ci.org/profile and travis-ci." >>>> >>>> > echo "And then make sure 'Build branch updates' >>>> option is >>>> >>>> enabled in >>>> >>>> > the settings >>>> https://travis-ci.org/${AUTHOR}/zeppelin/settings >>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings> >>>> >>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings>." >>>> >>>> > echo "" >>>> >>>> > echo "To trigger CI after setup, you will need >>>> ammend your >>>> >>>> last commit >>>> >>>> > with" >>>> >>>> > echo "git commit --amend" >>>> >>>> > echo "git push your-remote HEAD --force" >>>> >>>> > echo "" >>>> >>>> > echo "See >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> http://zeppelin.apache.org/contribution/contributions.html#continuous-integration >>>> >>>> >>>> > ." >>>> >>>> > fi >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > exit $RET_CODE >>>> >>>> > else >>>> >>>> > set +x >>>> >>>> > echo "travis_check.py does not exists" >>>> >>>> > exit 1 >>>> >>>> > fi >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>>> 于2019年6月29日周六 下午3:17写道： >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >> Does this imply that a Jenkins job is active as long >>>> as the >>>> >>>> Travis build >>>> >>>> >> runs? >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> On 26/06/2019 21:28, Bowen Li wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> Hi, >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> @Dawid, I think the "long test running" as I >>>> mentioned in the >>>> >>>> first >>>> >>>> >> email, >>>> >>>> >>> also as you guys said, belongs to "a big effort >>>> which is much >>>> >>>> harder to >>>> >>>> >>> accomplish in a short period of time and may deserve >>>> its own >>>> >>>> separate >>>> >>>> >>> discussion". Thus I didn't include it in what we can >>>> do in a >>>> >>>> foreseeable >>>> >>>> >>> short term. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> Besides, I don't think that's the ultimate reason >>>> for lack of >>>> >>>> build >>>> >>>> >>> resources. Even if the build is shortened to >>>> something like >>>> >>>> 2h, the >>>> >>>> >>> problems of no build machine works about 6 or more >>>> hours in >>>> >>>> PST daytime >>>> >>>> >>> that I described will still happen, because no >>>> machine from >>>> >>>> ASF INFRA's >>>> >>>> >>> pool is allocated to Flink. As I have paid close >>>> attention to >>>> >>>> the build >>>> >>>> >>> queue in the past few weekdays, it's a pretty clear >>>> pattern now. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> **The ultimate root cause** for that is - we don't >>>> have any >>>> >>>> **dedicated** >>>> >>>> >>> build resources that we can stably rely on. I'm >>>> actually ok to >>>> >>>> wait for a >>>> >>>> >>> long time if there are build requests running, it >>>> means at >>>> >>>> least we are >>>> >>>> >>> making progress. But I'm not ok with no build >>>> resource. A >>>> >>>> better place I >>>> >>>> >>> think we should aim at in short term is to always >>>> have at >>>> >>>> least a central >>>> >>>> >>> pool (can be 3 or 5) of machines dedicated to build >>>> Flink at >>>> >>>> any time, or >>>> >>>> >>> maybe use users resources. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> @Chesnay @Robert I synced with Jeff offline that >>>> Zeppelin >>>> >>>> community is >>>> >>>> >>> using a Jenkins job to automatically build on users' >>>> travis >>>> >>>> account and >>>> >>>> >>> link the result back to github PR. I guess the >>>> Jenkins job >>>> >>>> would fetch >>>> >>>> >>> latest upstream master and build the PR against it. >>>> Jeff has >>>> >>>> filed >>>> >>>> >> tickets >>>> >>>> >>> to learn and get access to the Jenkins infra. It'll >>>> better to >>>> >>>> fully >>>> >>>> >>> understand it first before judging this approach. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> I also heard good things about CircleCI, and ASF >>>> INFRA seems >>>> >>>> to have a >>>> >>>> >> pool >>>> >>>> >>> of build capacity there too. Can be an alternative >>>> to consider. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:44 AM Dawid Wysakowicz < >>>> >>>> >> [hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>>> >>>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry to jump in late, but I think Bowen missed the >>>> most >>>> >>>> important point >>>> >>>> >>>> from Chesnay's previous message in the summary. The >>>> ultimate >>>> >>>> reason for >>>> >>>> >>>> all the problems is that the tests take close to 2 >>>> hours to >>>> >>>> run already. >>>> >>>> >>>> I fully support this claim: "Unless people start >>>> caring about >>>> >>>> test times >>>> >>>> >>>> before adding them, this issue cannot be solved" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is also another reason why using user's Travis >>>> account >>>> >>>> won't help. >>>> >>>> >>>> Every few weeks we reach the user's time limit for >>>> a single >>>> >>>> profile. >>>> >>>> >>>> This makes the user's builds simply fail, until we >>>> either >>>> >>>> properly >>>> >>>> >>>> decrease the time the tests take (which I am not >>>> sure we ever >>>> >>>> did) or >>>> >>>> >>>> postpone the problem by splitting into more >>>> profiles. (Note >>>> >>>> that the ASF >>>> >>>> >>>> Travis account has higher time limits) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dawid >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 26/06/2019 09:36, Robert Metzger wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Do we know if using "the best" available hardware >>>> would >>>> >>>> improve the >>>> >>>> >> build >>>> >>>> >>>>> times? >>>> >>>> >>>>> Imagine we would run the build on machines with >>>> plenty of >>>> >>>> main memory >>>> >>>> >> to >>>> >>>> >>>>> mount everything to ramdisk + the latest CPU >>>> architecture? >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Throwing hardware at the problem could help reduce >>>> the time >>>> >>>> of an >>>> >>>> >>>>> individual build, and using our own infrastructure >>>> would >>>> >>>> remove our >>>> >>>> >>>>> dependency on Apache's Travis account (with the >>>> obvious >>>> >>>> downside of >>>> >>>> >>>> having >>>> >>>> >>>>> to maintain the infrastructure) >>>> >>>> >>>>> We could use an open source travis alternative, to >>>> have a >>>> >>>> similar >>>> >>>> >>>>> experience and make the migration easy. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:34 AM Chesnay Schepler >>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >From what I gathered, there's no special >>>> sauce that the >>>> >>>> Zeppelin >>>> >>>> >>>>>> project uses which actually integrates a users >>>> Travis >>>> >>>> account into the >>>> >>>> >>>> PR. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> They just disabled Travis for PRs. And that's >>>> kind of it. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Naturally we can do this (duh) and safe the ASF a >>>> fair >>>> >>>> amount of >>>> >>>> >>>>>> resources, but there are downsides: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> The discoverability of the Travis check takes a >>>> nose-dive. >>>> >>>> Either we >>>> >>>> >>>>>> require every contributor to always, an every >>>> commit, also >>>> >>>> post a >>>> >>>> >> Travis >>>> >>>> >>>>>> build, or we have the reviewer sift through the >>>> >>>> contributors account >>>> >>>> >> to >>>> >>>> >>>>>> find it. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> This is rather cumbersome. Additionally, it's >>>> also not >>>> >>>> equivalent to >>>> >>>> >>>>>> having a PR build. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> A normal branch build takes a branch as is and >>>> tests it. A >>>> >>>> PR build >>>> >>>> >>>>>> merges the branch into master, and then runs it. >>>> (Fun fact: >>>> >>>> This is >>>> >>>> >> why >>>> >>>> >>>>>> a PR without merge conflicts is not being run on >>>> Travis.) >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> And ultimately, everyone can already make use >>>> of this >>>> >>>> approach anyway. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> On 25/06/2019 08:02, Jark Wu wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jeff, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing the Zeppelin approach. I >>>> think it's a >>>> >>>> good idea to >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> leverage user's travis account. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> In this way, we can have almost unlimited >>>> concurrent build >>>> >>>> jobs and >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> developers can restart build by themselves >>>> (currently only >>>> >>>> committers >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> can restart PR's build). >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> But I'm still not very clear how to integrate >>>> user's >>>> >>>> travis build >>>> >>>> >> into >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> the Flink pull request's build automatically. >>>> Can you >>>> >>>> explain more in >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> detail? >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Another question: does travis only build >>>> branches for user >>>> >>>> account? >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> My concern is that builds for PRs will rebase >>>> user's >>>> >>>> commits against >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> current master branch. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> This will help us to find problems before >>>> merge. Builds >>>> >>>> for branches >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> will lose the impact of new commits in master. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> How does Zeppelin solve this problem? >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again for sharing the idea. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jark >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:01, Jeff Zhang >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Folks, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Zeppelin meet this kind of issue before, we >>>> solve >>>> >>>> it by >>>> >>>> >> delegating >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> each >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> one's PR build to his travis account >>>> (Everyone can >>>> >>>> have 5 free >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> slot for >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis build). >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Apache account travis build is only >>>> triggered when >>>> >>>> PR is merged. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Kurt Young <[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> 于2019年6月25日周二 上午10:16写道： >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > (Forgot to cc George) >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Best, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Kurt >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kurt Young >>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Hi Bowen, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Thanks for bringing this up. We >>>> actually have >>>> >>>> discussed >>>> >>>> >> about >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> this, and I >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > think Till and George have >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > already spend sometime investigating >>>> it. I have >>>> >>>> cced both of >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> them, and >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > maybe they can share >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > their findings. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Best, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Kurt >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:08 AM Jark Wu >>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Hi Bowen, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Thanks for bringing this. We also >>>> suffered from >>>> >>>> the long >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> build time. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I agree that we should focus on >>>> solving build >>>> >>>> capacity >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> problem in the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> thread. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> My observation is there is only one >>>> build is >>>> >>>> running, all >>>> >>>> >> the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> others >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> (other >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> PRs, master) are pending. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> The pricing plan[1] of travis shows >>>> it can >>>> >>>> support >>>> >>>> >> concurrent >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> build >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > jobs. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> But I don't know which plan we are >>>> using, might >>>> >>>> be the free >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan for >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > open >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> source. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I cc-ed Chesnay who may have some >>>> experience on >>>> >>>> Travis. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Jark >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> [1]: https://travis-ci.com/plans >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 08:11, Bowen Li < >>>> >>>> >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > Hi Steven, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > I think you may not read what I >>>> wrote. The >>>> >>>> discussion is >>>> >>>> >>>> about >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > "unstable >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > build **capacity**", in another word >>>> >>>> "unstable / lack of >>>> >>>> >>>> build >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> resources", >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > not "unstable build". >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:40 PM >>>> Steven Wu >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > long and sometimes unstable build is >>>> >>>> definitely a pain >>>> >>>> >>>>>> point. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > I suspect the build failure here in >>>> >>>> >> flink-connector-kafka >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> is not >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> related >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > to >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > my change. but there is no easy >>>> re-run the >>>> >>>> build on >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis UI. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > search showed a trick of >>>> close-and-open the >>>> >>>> PR will >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> trigger rebuild. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> but >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that could add noises to the PR >>>> activities. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/545555519 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > travis-ci for my personal repo >>>> often failed >>>> >>>> with >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> exceeding time >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > limit >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > after >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 4+ hours. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > The job exceeded the maximum time >>>> limit for >>>> >>>> jobs, and >>>> >>>> >> has >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> been >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > terminated. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:15 PM >>>> Bowen Li >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/549681530 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> This build >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > request >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > has >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > been sitting at **HEAD of the >>>> queue** >>>> >>>> since I first >>>> >>>> >> saw >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> it at PST >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 10:30am >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > (not sure how long it's been >>>> there before >>>> >>>> 10:30am). >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> It's PST >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > 4:12pm >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> now >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > and >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > it hasn't started yet. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:48 PM >>>> Bowen Li >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > Hi devs, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I've been experiencing the pain >>>> >>>> resulting from lack >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> of stable >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> build >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > capacity on Travis for Flink >>>> PRs [1]. >>>> >>>> >> Specifically, I >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> noticed >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> often >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > no >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build in the queue is making any >>>> >>>> progress for >>>> >>>> >> hours, >>>> >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > suddenly >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> 5 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > or >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 6 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > builds kick off all together >>>> after the >>>> >>>> long pause. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> I'm at PST >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > (UTC-08) >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > time >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > zone, and I've seen pause can >>>> be as >>>> >>>> long as 6 hours >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> from PST 9am >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> to >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 3pm >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > (let alone the time needed to >>>> drain the >>>> >>>> queue >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> afterwards). >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I think this has greatly >>>> impacted our >>>> >>>> productivity. >>>> >>>> >>>> I've >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> experienced >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > PRs submitted in the early >>>> morning of >>>> >>>> PST time zone >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> won't finish >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > their >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build until late night of the >>>> same day. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > So my questions are: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - Has anyone else experienced >>>> the same >>>> >>>> problem or >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> have similar >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > observation >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > on TravisCI? (I suspect it >>>> has things >>>> >>>> to do with >>>> >>>> >> time >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> zone) >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - What pricing plan of >>>> TravisCI is >>>> >>>> Flink currently >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> using? Is it >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > free >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > plan for open source >>>> projects? What >>>> >>>> are the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> guaranteed build >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> capacity >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > of >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > the current plan? >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - If the current pricing plan >>>> (either >>>> >>>> free or paid) >>>> >>>> >>>>>> can't >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > provide >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > stable >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build capacity, can we >>>> upgrade to a >>>> >>>> higher priced >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan with >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > larger >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > and >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > more >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > stable build capacity? >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > BTW, another factor that >>>> contribute to >>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> productivity problem >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > is >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > that >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > our build is slow - we run >>>> full build >>>> >>>> for every PR >>>> >>>> >>>> and a >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> successful >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > full >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build takes ~5h. We >>>> definitely have >>>> >>>> more options to >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> solve it, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > for >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > instance, >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > modularize the build graphs >>>> and reuse >>>> >>>> artifacts >>>> >>>> >> from >>>> >>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > previous >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > build. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > But I think that can be a big >>>> effort >>>> >>>> which is much >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> harder to >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > accomplish >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > in >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > a short period of time and >>>> may deserve >>>> >>>> its own >>>> >>>> >>>> separate >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> discussion. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > [1] >>>> >>>> >> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/pull_requests >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jeff Zhang >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > |
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Migrate to sponsored Travis account
|
|
Thanks for all your efforts Chesnay, it indeed improves a lot for our
develop experience. BTW, do you know how to find the master branch information which the CI runs with? For example, like this one: https://travis-ci.com/flink-ci/flink/jobs/214542568 It shows pass with the commits, which rebased on the master when the CI is triggered. But it's both possible that the master branch CI runs on is the same or different with current master. If it's the same, I can simply rely on the passed information to push commits, but if it's not, I think i should find another way to re-trigger tests based on the newest master. Do you know where can I get such information? Best, Kurt On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 3:27 AM Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote: > The kinks have been worked out; the bot is running again and pr builds > are yet again no longer running on ASF resources. > > PRs are mirrored to: https://github.com/flink-ci/flink > Bot source: https://github.com/flink-ci/ci-bot > > On 08/07/2019 17:14, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > > I have temporarily re-enabled running PR builds on the ASF account; > > migrating to the Travis subscription caused some issues in the bot > > that I have to fix first. > > > > On 07/07/2019 23:01, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > >> The vote has passed unanimously in favor of migrating to a separate > >> Travis account. > >> > >> I will now set things up such that no PullRequest is no longer run on > >> the ASF servers. > >> This is a major setup in reducing our usage of ASF resources. > >> For the time being we'll use free Travis plan for flink-ci (i.e. 5 > >> workers, which is the same the ASF gives us). Over the course of the > >> next week we'll setup the Ververica subscription to increase this limit. > >> > >> From now now, a bot will mirror all new and updated PullRequests to a > >> mirror repository (https://github.com/flink-ci/flink-ci) and write an > >> update into the PR once the build is complete. > >> I have ran the bots for the past 3 days in parallel to our existing > >> Travis and it was working without major issues. > >> > >> The biggest change that contributors will see is that there's no > >> longer a icon next to each commit. We may revisit this in the future. > >> > >> I'll setup a repo with the source of the bot later. > >> > >> On 04/07/2019 10:46, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > >>> I've raised a JIRA > >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18703>with INFRA to > >>> inquire whether it would be possible to switch to a different Travis > >>> account, and if so what steps would need to be taken. > >>> We need a proper confirmation from INFRA since we are not in full > >>> control of the flink repository (for example, we cannot access the > >>> settings page). > >>> > >>> If this is indeed possible, Ververica is willing sponsor a Travis > >>> account for the Flink project. > >>> This would provide us with more than enough resources than we need. > >>> > >>> Since this makes the project more reliant on resources provided by > >>> external companies I would like to vote on this. > >>> > >>> Please vote on this proposal, as follows: > >>> [ ] +1, Approve the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis > >>> account, provided that INFRA approves > >>> [ ] -1, Do not approach the migration to a Ververica-sponsored > >>> Travis account > >>> > >>> The vote will be open for at least 24h, and until we have > >>> confirmation from INFRA. The voting period may be shorter than the > >>> usual 3 days since our current is effectively not working. > >>> > >>> On 04/07/2019 06:51, Bowen Li wrote: > >>>> Re: > Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to > >>>> an entirely different CI service? > >>>> > >>>> I reached out to Wes and Krisztián from Apache Arrow PMC. They are > >>>> currently moving away from ASF's Travis to their own in-house metal > >>>> machines at [1] with custom CI application at [2]. They've seen > >>>> significant improvement w.r.t both much higher performance and > >>>> basically no resource waiting time, "night-and-day" difference > >>>> quoting Wes. > >>>> > >>>> Re: > If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our > >>>> project, then this might be something we can do fairly quickly? > >>>> > >>>> I believe so, according to [3] and [4] > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> [1] https://ci.ursalabs.org/ <https://ci.ursalabs.org/#/> > >>>> [2] https://github.com/ursa-labs/ursabot > >>>> [3] > >>>> > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration > >>>> > >>>> [4] > >>>> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-on-travis-ci-com > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:01 AM Chesnay Schepler > >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to an > >>>> entirely different CI service? > >>>> > >>>> If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our > >>>> project, then > >>>> this might be something we can do fairly quickly? > >>>> > >>>> On 03/07/2019 05:55, Bowen Li wrote: > >>>> > I responded in the INFRA ticket [1] that I believe they are > >>>> using a wrong > >>>> > metric against Flink and the total build time is a completely > >>>> different > >>>> > thing than guaranteed build capacity. > >>>> > > >>>> > My response: > >>>> > > >>>> > "As mentioned above, since I started to pay attention to Flink's > >>>> build > >>>> > queue a few tens of days ago, I'm in Seattle and I saw no build > >>>> was kicking > >>>> > off in PST daytime in weekdays for Flink. Our teammates in China > >>>> and Europe > >>>> > have also reported similar observations. So we need to evaluate > >>>> how the > >>>> > large total build time came from - if 1) your number and 2) our > >>>> > observations from three locations that cover pretty much a full > >>>> day, are > >>>> > all true, I **guess** one reason can be that - highly likely the > >>>> extra > >>>> > build time came from weekends when other Apache projects may be > >>>> idle and > >>>> > Flink just drains hard its congested queue. > >>>> > > >>>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack of > >>>> resources > >>>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, > >>>> dedicated** > >>>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even if > >>>> no build is > >>>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head > >>>> in PST > >>>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an absurd > >>>> amount of > >>>> > waiting time. > >>>> > > >>>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system and > >>>> grants > >>>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for > >>>> Flink, that'll > >>>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. > >>>> > > >>>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack of > >>>> resources > >>>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, > >>>> dedicated** > >>>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even if > >>>> no build is > >>>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head > >>>> in PST > >>>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an absurd > >>>> amount of > >>>> > waiting time. > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system and > >>>> grants > >>>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for > >>>> Flink, that'll > >>>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. > >>>> > > >>>> > I feel what's missing in the ASF INFRA's Travis resource pool is > >>>> some level > >>>> > of build capacity SLAs and certainty" > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > Again, I believe there are differences in nature of these two > >>>> problems, > >>>> > long build time v.s. lack of dedicated build resource. That's > >>>> saying, > >>>> > shortening build time may relieve the situation, and may not. > >>>> I'm sightly > >>>> > negative on disabling IT cases for PRs, due to the downside is > >>>> that we are > >>>> > at risk of any potential bugs in PR that UTs doesn't catch, and > >>>> may cost a > >>>> > lot more to fix and if it slows others down or even block > >>>> others, but am > >>>> > open to others opinions on it. > >>>> > > >>>> > AFAICT from INFRA ticket[1], donating to ASF INFRA won't be > >>>> feasible to > >>>> > solve our problem since INFRA's pool is fully shared and they > >>>> have no > >>>> > control and finer insights over resource allocation to a > >>>> specific Apache > >>>> > project. As mentioned in [1], Apache Arrow is moving away from > >>>> ASF INFRA > >>>> > Travis pool (they are actually surprised Flink hasn't plan to do > >>>> so). I > >>>> > know that Spark is on its own build infra. If we all agree that > >>>> funding our > >>>> > own build infra, I'd be glad to help investigate any potential > >>>> options > >>>> > after releasing 1.9 since I'm super busy with 1.9 now. > >>>> > > >>>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:46 AM Chesnay Schepler > >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> >> As a short-term stopgap, since we can assume this issue to > >>>> become much > >>>> >> worse in the following days/weeks, we could disable IT cases in > >>>> PRs and > >>>> >> only run them on master. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> On 02/07/2019 12:03, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > >>>> >>> People really have to stop thinking that just because > >>>> something works > >>>> >>> for us it is also a good solution. > >>>> >>> Also, please remember that our builds run for 2h from start to > >>>> finish, > >>>> >>> and not the 14 _minutes_ it takes for zeppelin. > >>>> >>> We are dealing with an entirely different scale here, both in > >>>> terms of > >>>> >>> build times and number of builds. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> In this very thread people have been complaining about long > >>>> queue > >>>> >>> times for their builds. Surprise, other Apache projects > >>>> have been > >>>> >>> suffering the very same thing due to us not controlling our > >>>> build > >>>> >>> times. While switching services (be it Jenkins, CircleCI or > >>>> whatever) > >>>> >>> will possibly work for us (and these options are actually > >>>> attractive, > >>>> >>> like CircleCI's proper support for build artifacts), it > >>>> will also > >>>> >>> result in us likely negatively affecting other projects in > >>>> significant > >>>> >>> ways. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> Sure, the Jenkins setup has a good user experience for us, at > >>>> the cost > >>>> >>> of blocking Jenkins workers for a _lot_ of time. Right now we > >>>> have 25 > >>>> >>> PR's in our queue; that's possibly 50h we'd consume of Jenkins > >>>> >>> resources, and the European contributors haven't even really > >>>> started yet. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> FYI, the latest INFRA response from INFRA-18533: > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> "Our rough metrics shows that Flink used over 5800 hours of > >>>> build time > >>>> >>> last month. That is equal to EIGHT servers running 24/7 for > >>>> the ENTIRE > >>>> >>> MONTH. EIGHT. nonstop. > >>>> >>> When we discovered this last night, we discussed it some and > >>>> are going > >>>> >>> to tune down Flink to allow only five executors maximum. We > >>>> cannot > >>>> >>> allow Flink to consume so much of a Foundation shared > >>>> resource." > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> So yes, we either > >>>> >>> a) have to heavily reduce our CI usage or > >>>> >>> b) fund our own, either maintaining it ourselves or donating > >>>> to Apache. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> On 02/07/2019 05:11, Bowen Li wrote: > >>>> >>>> By looking at the git history of the Jenkins script, its core > >>>> part > >>>> >>>> was finished in March 2017 (and only two minor update in > >>>> 2017/2018), > >>>> >>>> so it's been running for over two years now and feels like > >>>> Zepplin > >>>> >>>> community has been quite happy with it. @Jeff Zhang > >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> can you > >>>> share your insights and user > >>>> >>>> experience with the Jenkins+Travis approach? > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Things like: > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> - has the approach completely solved the resource capacity > >>>> problem > >>>> >>>> for Zepplin community? is Zepplin community happy with the > >>>> result? > >>>> >>>> - is the whole configuration chain stable (e.g. uptime) > >>>> enough? > >>>> >>>> - how often do you need to maintain the Jenkins infra? how > >>>> many > >>>> >>>> people are usually involved in maintenance and bug-fixes? > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> The downside of this approach seems mostly to be on the > >>>> maintenance > >>>> >>>> to me - maintain the script and Jenkins infra. > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> ** Having Our Own Travis-CI.com Account ** > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Another alternative I've been thinking of is to have our own > >>>> >>>> travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> <http://travis-ci.com> > >>>> account with paid dedicated > >>>> >>>> resources. Note travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> > >>>> <http://travis-ci.org> is the free > >>>> >>>> version and travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> > >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> is the commercial > >>>> >>>> version. We currently use a shared resource pool managed by > >>>> ASK INFRA > >>>> >>>> team on travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> > >>>> <http://travis-ci.org>, but we have no control > >>>> >>>> over it - we can't see how it's configured, how much > >>>> resources are > >>>> >>>> available, how resources are allocated among Apache projects, > >>>> etc. > >>>> >>>> The nice thing about having an account on travis-ci.com > >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> > >>>> >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> are: > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> - relatively low cost with much better resource guarantee > >>>> than what > >>>> >>>> we currently have [1]: $249/month with 5 dedicated > >>>> concurrency, > >>>> >>>> $489/month with 10 concurrency > >>>> >>>> - low maintenance work compared to using Jenkins > >>>> >>>> - (potentially) no migration cost according to Travis's > >>>> doc [2] > >>>> >>>> (pending verification) > >>>> >>>> - full control over the build capacity/configuration > >>>> compared to > >>>> >>>> using ASF INFRA's pool > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> I'd be surprised if we as such a vibrant community cannot > >>>> find and > >>>> >>>> fund $249*12=$2988 a year in exchange for a much better > >>>> developer > >>>> >>>> experience and much higher productivity. > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> [1] https://travis-ci.com/plans > >>>> >>>> [2] > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >> > >>>> > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration > >>>> > >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM Chesnay Schepler > >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> So yes, the Jenkins job keeps pulling the state from > >>>> Travis until it > >>>> >>>> finishes. > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Note sure I'm comfortable with the idea of using Jenkins > >>>> workers > >>>> >>>> just to > >>>> >>>> idle for a several hours. > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> On 29/06/2019 14:56, Jeff Zhang wrote: > >>>> >>>> > Here's what zeppelin community did, we make a python > >>>> script to > >>>> >>>> check the > >>>> >>>> > build status of pull request. > >>>> >>>> > Here's script: > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/travis_check.py > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> > And this is the script we used in Jenkins build job. > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> > if [ -f "travis_check.py" ]; then > >>>> >>>> > git log -n 1 > >>>> >>>> > STATUS=$(curl -s $BUILD_URL | grep -e "GitHub pull > >>>> >>>> request.*from.*" | sed > >>>> >>>> > 's/.*GitHub pull request <a > >>>> >>>> > href=\"\(https[^"]*\).*from[^"]*.\(https[^"]*\).*/\1 > >>>> \2/g') > >>>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(echo $STATUS | sed 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') > >>>> >>>> > PR=$(echo $STATUS | awk '{print $1}' | sed > >>>> >>>> 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') > >>>> >>>> > #COMMIT=$(git log -n 1 | grep "^Merge:" | awk > >>>> '{print $3}') > >>>> >>>> > #if [ -z $COMMIT ]; then > >>>> >>>> > # COMMIT=$(curl -s > >>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR > >>>> >>>> > | grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | > >>>> tr '\n' ' ' > >>>> >>>> | sed > >>>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = '\n' | > >>>> grep -v > >>>> >>>> "apache:" | > >>>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') > >>>> >>>> > #fi > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> > # get commit hash from PR > >>>> >>>> > COMMIT=$(curl -s > >>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR | > >>>> >>>> > grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | tr > >>>> '\n' ' ' > >>>> >>>> | sed > >>>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = '\n' | > >>>> grep -v > >>>> >>>> "apache:" | > >>>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') > >>>> >>>> > sleep 30 # sleep few moment to wait travis starts > >>>> the build > >>>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 > >>>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || > >>>> RET_CODE=$? > >>>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # try with repository > >>>> name when > >>>> >>>> travis-ci is > >>>> >>>> > not available in the account > >>>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 > >>>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(curl -s > >>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR > >>>> >>>> > | grep '"full_name":' | grep -v "apache/zeppelin" | > >>>> sed > >>>> >>>> > 's/.*[:][^"]*["]\([^/]*\).*/\1/g') > >>>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || > >>>> RET_CODE=$? > >>>> >>>> > fi > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # fail with can't find > >>>> build > >>>> >>>> information in > >>>> >>>> > the travis > >>>> >>>> > set +x > >>>> >>>> > echo > >>>> "-----------------------------------------------------" > >>>> >>>> > echo "Looks like travis-ci is not configured for > >>>> your fork." > >>>> >>>> > echo "Please setup by swich on 'zeppelin' > >>>> repository at > >>>> >>>> > https://travis-ci.org/profile and travis-ci." > >>>> >>>> > echo "And then make sure 'Build branch updates' > >>>> option is > >>>> >>>> enabled in > >>>> >>>> > the settings > >>>> https://travis-ci.org/${AUTHOR}/zeppelin/settings > >>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings> > >>>> >>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings>." > >>>> >>>> > echo "" > >>>> >>>> > echo "To trigger CI after setup, you will need > >>>> ammend your > >>>> >>>> last commit > >>>> >>>> > with" > >>>> >>>> > echo "git commit --amend" > >>>> >>>> > echo "git push your-remote HEAD --force" > >>>> >>>> > echo "" > >>>> >>>> > echo "See > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >> > >>>> > http://zeppelin.apache.org/contribution/contributions.html#continuous-integration > >>>> > >>>> >>>> > ." > >>>> >>>> > fi > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> > exit $RET_CODE > >>>> >>>> > else > >>>> >>>> > set +x > >>>> >>>> > echo "travis_check.py does not exists" > >>>> >>>> > exit 1 > >>>> >>>> > fi > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> > Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email] > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email] > >>> > >>>> 于2019年6月29日周六 下午3:17写道： > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> >> Does this imply that a Jenkins job is active as long > >>>> as the > >>>> >>>> Travis build > >>>> >>>> >> runs? > >>>> >>>> >> > >>>> >>>> >> On 26/06/2019 21:28, Bowen Li wrote: > >>>> >>>> >>> Hi, > >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> >>> @Dawid, I think the "long test running" as I > >>>> mentioned in the > >>>> >>>> first > >>>> >>>> >> email, > >>>> >>>> >>> also as you guys said, belongs to "a big effort > >>>> which is much > >>>> >>>> harder to > >>>> >>>> >>> accomplish in a short period of time and may deserve > >>>> its own > >>>> >>>> separate > >>>> >>>> >>> discussion". Thus I didn't include it in what we can > >>>> do in a > >>>> >>>> foreseeable > >>>> >>>> >>> short term. > >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> >>> Besides, I don't think that's the ultimate reason > >>>> for lack of > >>>> >>>> build > >>>> >>>> >>> resources. Even if the build is shortened to > >>>> something like > >>>> >>>> 2h, the > >>>> >>>> >>> problems of no build machine works about 6 or more > >>>> hours in > >>>> >>>> PST daytime > >>>> >>>> >>> that I described will still happen, because no > >>>> machine from > >>>> >>>> ASF INFRA's > >>>> >>>> >>> pool is allocated to Flink. As I have paid close > >>>> attention to > >>>> >>>> the build > >>>> >>>> >>> queue in the past few weekdays, it's a pretty clear > >>>> pattern now. > >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> >>> **The ultimate root cause** for that is - we don't > >>>> have any > >>>> >>>> **dedicated** > >>>> >>>> >>> build resources that we can stably rely on. I'm > >>>> actually ok to > >>>> >>>> wait for a > >>>> >>>> >>> long time if there are build requests running, it > >>>> means at > >>>> >>>> least we are > >>>> >>>> >>> making progress. But I'm not ok with no build > >>>> resource. A > >>>> >>>> better place I > >>>> >>>> >>> think we should aim at in short term is to always > >>>> have at > >>>> >>>> least a central > >>>> >>>> >>> pool (can be 3 or 5) of machines dedicated to build > >>>> Flink at > >>>> >>>> any time, or > >>>> >>>> >>> maybe use users resources. > >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> >>> @Chesnay @Robert I synced with Jeff offline that > >>>> Zeppelin > >>>> >>>> community is > >>>> >>>> >>> using a Jenkins job to automatically build on users' > >>>> travis > >>>> >>>> account and > >>>> >>>> >>> link the result back to github PR. I guess the > >>>> Jenkins job > >>>> >>>> would fetch > >>>> >>>> >>> latest upstream master and build the PR against it. > >>>> Jeff has > >>>> >>>> filed > >>>> >>>> >> tickets > >>>> >>>> >>> to learn and get access to the Jenkins infra. It'll > >>>> better to > >>>> >>>> fully > >>>> >>>> >>> understand it first before judging this approach. > >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> >>> I also heard good things about CircleCI, and ASF > >>>> INFRA seems > >>>> >>>> to have a > >>>> >>>> >> pool > >>>> >>>> >>> of build capacity there too. Can be an alternative > >>>> to consider. > >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:44 AM Dawid Wysakowicz < > >>>> >>>> >> [hidden email] > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > >>>> >>>> >>> wrote: > >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry to jump in late, but I think Bowen missed the > >>>> most > >>>> >>>> important point > >>>> >>>> >>>> from Chesnay's previous message in the summary. The > >>>> ultimate > >>>> >>>> reason for > >>>> >>>> >>>> all the problems is that the tests take close to 2 > >>>> hours to > >>>> >>>> run already. > >>>> >>>> >>>> I fully support this claim: "Unless people start > >>>> caring about > >>>> >>>> test times > >>>> >>>> >>>> before adding them, this issue cannot be solved" > >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> This is also another reason why using user's Travis > >>>> account > >>>> >>>> won't help. > >>>> >>>> >>>> Every few weeks we reach the user's time limit for > >>>> a single > >>>> >>>> profile. > >>>> >>>> >>>> This makes the user's builds simply fail, until we > >>>> either > >>>> >>>> properly > >>>> >>>> >>>> decrease the time the tests take (which I am not > >>>> sure we ever > >>>> >>>> did) or > >>>> >>>> >>>> postpone the problem by splitting into more > >>>> profiles. (Note > >>>> >>>> that the ASF > >>>> >>>> >>>> Travis account has higher time limits) > >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, > >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> Dawid > >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> On 26/06/2019 09:36, Robert Metzger wrote: > >>>> >>>> >>>>> Do we know if using "the best" available hardware > >>>> would > >>>> >>>> improve the > >>>> >>>> >> build > >>>> >>>> >>>>> times? > >>>> >>>> >>>>> Imagine we would run the build on machines with > >>>> plenty of > >>>> >>>> main memory > >>>> >>>> >> to > >>>> >>>> >>>>> mount everything to ramdisk + the latest CPU > >>>> architecture? > >>>> >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>> Throwing hardware at the problem could help reduce > >>>> the time > >>>> >>>> of an > >>>> >>>> >>>>> individual build, and using our own infrastructure > >>>> would > >>>> >>>> remove our > >>>> >>>> >>>>> dependency on Apache's Travis account (with the > >>>> obvious > >>>> >>>> downside of > >>>> >>>> >>>> having > >>>> >>>> >>>>> to maintain the infrastructure) > >>>> >>>> >>>>> We could use an open source travis alternative, to > >>>> have a > >>>> >>>> similar > >>>> >>>> >>>>> experience and make the migration easy. > >>>> >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:34 AM Chesnay Schepler > >>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >From what I gathered, there's no special > >>>> sauce that the > >>>> >>>> Zeppelin > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> project uses which actually integrates a users > >>>> Travis > >>>> >>>> account into the > >>>> >>>> >>>> PR. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> They just disabled Travis for PRs. And that's > >>>> kind of it. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Naturally we can do this (duh) and safe the ASF a > >>>> fair > >>>> >>>> amount of > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> resources, but there are downsides: > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> The discoverability of the Travis check takes a > >>>> nose-dive. > >>>> >>>> Either we > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> require every contributor to always, an every > >>>> commit, also > >>>> >>>> post a > >>>> >>>> >> Travis > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> build, or we have the reviewer sift through the > >>>> >>>> contributors account > >>>> >>>> >> to > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> find it. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> This is rather cumbersome. Additionally, it's > >>>> also not > >>>> >>>> equivalent to > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> having a PR build. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> A normal branch build takes a branch as is and > >>>> tests it. A > >>>> >>>> PR build > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> merges the branch into master, and then runs it. > >>>> (Fun fact: > >>>> >>>> This is > >>>> >>>> >> why > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> a PR without merge conflicts is not being run on > >>>> Travis.) > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> And ultimately, everyone can already make use > >>>> of this > >>>> >>>> approach anyway. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> On 25/06/2019 08:02, Jark Wu wrote: > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jeff, > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing the Zeppelin approach. I > >>>> think it's a > >>>> >>>> good idea to > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> leverage user's travis account. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> In this way, we can have almost unlimited > >>>> concurrent build > >>>> >>>> jobs and > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> developers can restart build by themselves > >>>> (currently only > >>>> >>>> committers > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> can restart PR's build). > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> But I'm still not very clear how to integrate > >>>> user's > >>>> >>>> travis build > >>>> >>>> >> into > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> the Flink pull request's build automatically. > >>>> Can you > >>>> >>>> explain more in > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> detail? > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Another question: does travis only build > >>>> branches for user > >>>> >>>> account? > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> My concern is that builds for PRs will rebase > >>>> user's > >>>> >>>> commits against > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> current master branch. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> This will help us to find problems before > >>>> merge. Builds > >>>> >>>> for branches > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> will lose the impact of new commits in master. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> How does Zeppelin solve this problem? > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again for sharing the idea. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Regards, > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jark > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:01, Jeff Zhang > >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Folks, > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Zeppelin meet this kind of issue before, we > >>>> solve > >>>> >>>> it by > >>>> >>>> >> delegating > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> each > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> one's PR build to his travis account > >>>> (Everyone can > >>>> >>>> have 5 free > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> slot for > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis build). > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Apache account travis build is only > >>>> triggered when > >>>> >>>> PR is merged. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Kurt Young <[hidden email] > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> 于2019年6月25日周二 上午10:16写道： > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > (Forgot to cc George) > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Best, > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Kurt > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kurt Young > >>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >>>> >>>> wrote: > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Hi Bowen, > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Thanks for bringing this up. We > >>>> actually have > >>>> >>>> discussed > >>>> >>>> >> about > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> this, and I > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > think Till and George have > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > already spend sometime investigating > >>>> it. I have > >>>> >>>> cced both of > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> them, and > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > maybe they can share > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > their findings. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Best, > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Kurt > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:08 AM Jark Wu > >>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >>>> >>>> wrote: > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Hi Bowen, > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Thanks for bringing this. We also > >>>> suffered from > >>>> >>>> the long > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> build time. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I agree that we should focus on > >>>> solving build > >>>> >>>> capacity > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> problem in the > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> thread. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> My observation is there is only one > >>>> build is > >>>> >>>> running, all > >>>> >>>> >> the > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> others > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> (other > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> PRs, master) are pending. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> The pricing plan[1] of travis shows > >>>> it can > >>>> >>>> support > >>>> >>>> >> concurrent > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> build > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > jobs. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> But I don't know which plan we are > >>>> using, might > >>>> >>>> be the free > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan for > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > open > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> source. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I cc-ed Chesnay who may have some > >>>> experience on > >>>> >>>> Travis. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Regards, > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Jark > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> [1]: https://travis-ci.com/plans > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 08:11, Bowen Li < > >>>> >>>> >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > Hi Steven, > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > I think you may not read what I > >>>> wrote. The > >>>> >>>> discussion is > >>>> >>>> >>>> about > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > "unstable > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > build **capacity**", in another word > >>>> >>>> "unstable / lack of > >>>> >>>> >>>> build > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> resources", > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > not "unstable build". > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:40 PM > >>>> Steven Wu > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > long and sometimes unstable build is > >>>> >>>> definitely a pain > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> point. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > I suspect the build failure here in > >>>> >>>> >> flink-connector-kafka > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> is not > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> related > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > to > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > my change. but there is no easy > >>>> re-run the > >>>> >>>> build on > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis UI. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > search showed a trick of > >>>> close-and-open the > >>>> >>>> PR will > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> trigger rebuild. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> but > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that could add noises to the PR > >>>> activities. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/545555519 > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > travis-ci for my personal repo > >>>> often failed > >>>> >>>> with > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> exceeding time > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > limit > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > after > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 4+ hours. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > The job exceeded the maximum time > >>>> limit for > >>>> >>>> jobs, and > >>>> >>>> >> has > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> been > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > terminated. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:15 PM > >>>> Bowen Li > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/549681530 > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> This build > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > request > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > has > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > been sitting at **HEAD of the > >>>> queue** > >>>> >>>> since I first > >>>> >>>> >> saw > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> it at PST > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 10:30am > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > (not sure how long it's been > >>>> there before > >>>> >>>> 10:30am). > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> It's PST > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > 4:12pm > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> now > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > and > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > it hasn't started yet. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:48 PM > >>>> Bowen Li > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email] > > > >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> wrote: > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > Hi devs, > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I've been experiencing the pain > >>>> >>>> resulting from lack > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> of stable > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> build > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > capacity on Travis for Flink > >>>> PRs [1]. > >>>> >>>> >> Specifically, I > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> noticed > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> often > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > no > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build in the queue is making any > >>>> >>>> progress for > >>>> >>>> >> hours, > >>>> >>>> >>>> and > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > suddenly > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> 5 > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > or > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 6 > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > builds kick off all together > >>>> after the > >>>> >>>> long pause. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> I'm at PST > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > (UTC-08) > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > time > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > zone, and I've seen pause can > >>>> be as > >>>> >>>> long as 6 hours > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> from PST 9am > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> to > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 3pm > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > (let alone the time needed to > >>>> drain the > >>>> >>>> queue > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> afterwards). > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I think this has greatly > >>>> impacted our > >>>> >>>> productivity. > >>>> >>>> >>>> I've > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> experienced > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > PRs submitted in the early > >>>> morning of > >>>> >>>> PST time zone > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> won't finish > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > their > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build until late night of the > >>>> same day. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > So my questions are: > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - Has anyone else experienced > >>>> the same > >>>> >>>> problem or > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> have similar > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > observation > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > on TravisCI? (I suspect it > >>>> has things > >>>> >>>> to do with > >>>> >>>> >> time > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> zone) > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - What pricing plan of > >>>> TravisCI is > >>>> >>>> Flink currently > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> using? Is it > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> the > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > free > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > plan for open source > >>>> projects? What > >>>> >>>> are the > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> guaranteed build > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> capacity > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > of > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > the current plan? > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - If the current pricing plan > >>>> (either > >>>> >>>> free or paid) > >>>> >>>> >>>>>> can't > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > provide > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > stable > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build capacity, can we > >>>> upgrade to a > >>>> >>>> higher priced > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan with > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > larger > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > and > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > more > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > stable build capacity? > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > BTW, another factor that > >>>> contribute to > >>>> >>>> the > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> productivity problem > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > is > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > that > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > our build is slow - we run > >>>> full build > >>>> >>>> for every PR > >>>> >>>> >>>> and a > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> successful > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > full > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build takes ~5h. We > >>>> definitely have > >>>> >>>> more options to > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> solve it, > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > for > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > instance, > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > modularize the build graphs > >>>> and reuse > >>>> >>>> artifacts > >>>> >>>> >> from > >>>> >>>> >>>> the > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > previous > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > build. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > But I think that can be a big > >>>> effort > >>>> >>>> which is much > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> harder to > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > accomplish > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > in > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > a short period of time and > >>>> may deserve > >>>> >>>> its own > >>>> >>>> >>>> separate > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> discussion. > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > [1] > >>>> >>>> >> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/pull_requests > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> -- > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jeff Zhang > >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>> >> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > |
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Migrate to sponsored Travis account
|
|
Your best bet would be to check the first commit in the PR and check the
parent commit. To re-run things, you will have to rebase the PR on the latest master. On 10/07/2019 03:32, Kurt Young wrote: > Thanks for all your efforts Chesnay, it indeed improves a lot for our > develop experience. BTW, do you know how to find the master branch > information which the CI runs with? > > For example, like this one: > https://travis-ci.com/flink-ci/flink/jobs/214542568 > It shows pass with the commits, which rebased on the master when the CI > is triggered. But it's both possible that the master branch CI runs on is > the > same or different with current master. If it's the same, I can simply rely > on the > passed information to push commits, but if it's not, I think i should find > another > way to re-trigger tests based on the newest master. > > Do you know where can I get such information? > > Best, > Kurt > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 3:27 AM Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> The kinks have been worked out; the bot is running again and pr builds >> are yet again no longer running on ASF resources. >> >> PRs are mirrored to: https://github.com/flink-ci/flink >> Bot source: https://github.com/flink-ci/ci-bot >> >> On 08/07/2019 17:14, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >>> I have temporarily re-enabled running PR builds on the ASF account; >>> migrating to the Travis subscription caused some issues in the bot >>> that I have to fix first. >>> >>> On 07/07/2019 23:01, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >>>> The vote has passed unanimously in favor of migrating to a separate >>>> Travis account. >>>> >>>> I will now set things up such that no PullRequest is no longer run on >>>> the ASF servers. >>>> This is a major setup in reducing our usage of ASF resources. >>>> For the time being we'll use free Travis plan for flink-ci (i.e. 5 >>>> workers, which is the same the ASF gives us). Over the course of the >>>> next week we'll setup the Ververica subscription to increase this limit. >>>> >>>> From now now, a bot will mirror all new and updated PullRequests to a >>>> mirror repository (https://github.com/flink-ci/flink-ci) and write an >>>> update into the PR once the build is complete. >>>> I have ran the bots for the past 3 days in parallel to our existing >>>> Travis and it was working without major issues. >>>> >>>> The biggest change that contributors will see is that there's no >>>> longer a icon next to each commit. We may revisit this in the future. >>>> >>>> I'll setup a repo with the source of the bot later. >>>> >>>> On 04/07/2019 10:46, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >>>>> I've raised a JIRA >>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18703>with INFRA to >>>>> inquire whether it would be possible to switch to a different Travis >>>>> account, and if so what steps would need to be taken. >>>>> We need a proper confirmation from INFRA since we are not in full >>>>> control of the flink repository (for example, we cannot access the >>>>> settings page). >>>>> >>>>> If this is indeed possible, Ververica is willing sponsor a Travis >>>>> account for the Flink project. >>>>> This would provide us with more than enough resources than we need. >>>>> >>>>> Since this makes the project more reliant on resources provided by >>>>> external companies I would like to vote on this. >>>>> >>>>> Please vote on this proposal, as follows: >>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis >>>>> account, provided that INFRA approves >>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approach the migration to a Ververica-sponsored >>>>> Travis account >>>>> >>>>> The vote will be open for at least 24h, and until we have >>>>> confirmation from INFRA. The voting period may be shorter than the >>>>> usual 3 days since our current is effectively not working. >>>>> >>>>> On 04/07/2019 06:51, Bowen Li wrote: >>>>>> Re: > Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to >>>>>> an entirely different CI service? >>>>>> >>>>>> I reached out to Wes and Krisztián from Apache Arrow PMC. They are >>>>>> currently moving away from ASF's Travis to their own in-house metal >>>>>> machines at [1] with custom CI application at [2]. They've seen >>>>>> significant improvement w.r.t both much higher performance and >>>>>> basically no resource waiting time, "night-and-day" difference >>>>>> quoting Wes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Re: > If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our >>>>>> project, then this might be something we can do fairly quickly? >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe so, according to [3] and [4] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://ci.ursalabs.org/ <https://ci.ursalabs.org/#/> >>>>>> [2] https://github.com/ursa-labs/ursabot >>>>>> [3] >>>>>> >> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration >>>>>> [4] >>>>>> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-on-travis-ci-com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:01 AM Chesnay Schepler >>>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to an >>>>>> entirely different CI service? >>>>>> >>>>>> If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our >>>>>> project, then >>>>>> this might be something we can do fairly quickly? >>>>>> >>>>>> On 03/07/2019 05:55, Bowen Li wrote: >>>>>> > I responded in the INFRA ticket [1] that I believe they are >>>>>> using a wrong >>>>>> > metric against Flink and the total build time is a completely >>>>>> different >>>>>> > thing than guaranteed build capacity. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > My response: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > "As mentioned above, since I started to pay attention to Flink's >>>>>> build >>>>>> > queue a few tens of days ago, I'm in Seattle and I saw no build >>>>>> was kicking >>>>>> > off in PST daytime in weekdays for Flink. Our teammates in China >>>>>> and Europe >>>>>> > have also reported similar observations. So we need to evaluate >>>>>> how the >>>>>> > large total build time came from - if 1) your number and 2) our >>>>>> > observations from three locations that cover pretty much a full >>>>>> day, are >>>>>> > all true, I **guess** one reason can be that - highly likely the >>>>>> extra >>>>>> > build time came from weekends when other Apache projects may be >>>>>> idle and >>>>>> > Flink just drains hard its congested queue. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack of >>>>>> resources >>>>>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, >>>>>> dedicated** >>>>>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even if >>>>>> no build is >>>>>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head >>>>>> in PST >>>>>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an absurd >>>>>> amount of >>>>>> > waiting time. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system and >>>>>> grants >>>>>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for >>>>>> Flink, that'll >>>>>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack of >>>>>> resources >>>>>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, >>>>>> dedicated** >>>>>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even if >>>>>> no build is >>>>>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head >>>>>> in PST >>>>>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an absurd >>>>>> amount of >>>>>> > waiting time. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system and >>>>>> grants >>>>>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for >>>>>> Flink, that'll >>>>>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I feel what's missing in the ASF INFRA's Travis resource pool is >>>>>> some level >>>>>> > of build capacity SLAs and certainty" >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Again, I believe there are differences in nature of these two >>>>>> problems, >>>>>> > long build time v.s. lack of dedicated build resource. That's >>>>>> saying, >>>>>> > shortening build time may relieve the situation, and may not. >>>>>> I'm sightly >>>>>> > negative on disabling IT cases for PRs, due to the downside is >>>>>> that we are >>>>>> > at risk of any potential bugs in PR that UTs doesn't catch, and >>>>>> may cost a >>>>>> > lot more to fix and if it slows others down or even block >>>>>> others, but am >>>>>> > open to others opinions on it. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > AFAICT from INFRA ticket[1], donating to ASF INFRA won't be >>>>>> feasible to >>>>>> > solve our problem since INFRA's pool is fully shared and they >>>>>> have no >>>>>> > control and finer insights over resource allocation to a >>>>>> specific Apache >>>>>> > project. As mentioned in [1], Apache Arrow is moving away from >>>>>> ASF INFRA >>>>>> > Travis pool (they are actually surprised Flink hasn't plan to do >>>>>> so). I >>>>>> > know that Spark is on its own build infra. If we all agree that >>>>>> funding our >>>>>> > own build infra, I'd be glad to help investigate any potential >>>>>> options >>>>>> > after releasing 1.9 since I'm super busy with 1.9 now. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:46 AM Chesnay Schepler >>>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> As a short-term stopgap, since we can assume this issue to >>>>>> become much >>>>>> >> worse in the following days/weeks, we could disable IT cases in >>>>>> PRs and >>>>>> >> only run them on master. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> On 02/07/2019 12:03, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >>>>>> >>> People really have to stop thinking that just because >>>>>> something works >>>>>> >>> for us it is also a good solution. >>>>>> >>> Also, please remember that our builds run for 2h from start to >>>>>> finish, >>>>>> >>> and not the 14 _minutes_ it takes for zeppelin. >>>>>> >>> We are dealing with an entirely different scale here, both in >>>>>> terms of >>>>>> >>> build times and number of builds. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> In this very thread people have been complaining about long >>>>>> queue >>>>>> >>> times for their builds. Surprise, other Apache projects >>>>>> have been >>>>>> >>> suffering the very same thing due to us not controlling our >>>>>> build >>>>>> >>> times. While switching services (be it Jenkins, CircleCI or >>>>>> whatever) >>>>>> >>> will possibly work for us (and these options are actually >>>>>> attractive, >>>>>> >>> like CircleCI's proper support for build artifacts), it >>>>>> will also >>>>>> >>> result in us likely negatively affecting other projects in >>>>>> significant >>>>>> >>> ways. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Sure, the Jenkins setup has a good user experience for us, at >>>>>> the cost >>>>>> >>> of blocking Jenkins workers for a _lot_ of time. Right now we >>>>>> have 25 >>>>>> >>> PR's in our queue; that's possibly 50h we'd consume of Jenkins >>>>>> >>> resources, and the European contributors haven't even really >>>>>> started yet. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> FYI, the latest INFRA response from INFRA-18533: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> "Our rough metrics shows that Flink used over 5800 hours of >>>>>> build time >>>>>> >>> last month. That is equal to EIGHT servers running 24/7 for >>>>>> the ENTIRE >>>>>> >>> MONTH. EIGHT. nonstop. >>>>>> >>> When we discovered this last night, we discussed it some and >>>>>> are going >>>>>> >>> to tune down Flink to allow only five executors maximum. We >>>>>> cannot >>>>>> >>> allow Flink to consume so much of a Foundation shared >>>>>> resource." >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> So yes, we either >>>>>> >>> a) have to heavily reduce our CI usage or >>>>>> >>> b) fund our own, either maintaining it ourselves or donating >>>>>> to Apache. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> On 02/07/2019 05:11, Bowen Li wrote: >>>>>> >>>> By looking at the git history of the Jenkins script, its core >>>>>> part >>>>>> >>>> was finished in March 2017 (and only two minor update in >>>>>> 2017/2018), >>>>>> >>>> so it's been running for over two years now and feels like >>>>>> Zepplin >>>>>> >>>> community has been quite happy with it. @Jeff Zhang >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> can you >>>>>> share your insights and user >>>>>> >>>> experience with the Jenkins+Travis approach? >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Things like: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> - has the approach completely solved the resource capacity >>>>>> problem >>>>>> >>>> for Zepplin community? is Zepplin community happy with the >>>>>> result? >>>>>> >>>> - is the whole configuration chain stable (e.g. uptime) >>>>>> enough? >>>>>> >>>> - how often do you need to maintain the Jenkins infra? how >>>>>> many >>>>>> >>>> people are usually involved in maintenance and bug-fixes? >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> The downside of this approach seems mostly to be on the >>>>>> maintenance >>>>>> >>>> to me - maintain the script and Jenkins infra. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> ** Having Our Own Travis-CI.com Account ** >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Another alternative I've been thinking of is to have our own >>>>>> >>>> travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> <http://travis-ci.com> >>>>>> account with paid dedicated >>>>>> >>>> resources. Note travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> >>>>>> <http://travis-ci.org> is the free >>>>>> >>>> version and travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> >>>>>> <http://travis-ci.com> is the commercial >>>>>> >>>> version. We currently use a shared resource pool managed by >>>>>> ASK INFRA >>>>>> >>>> team on travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> >>>>>> <http://travis-ci.org>, but we have no control >>>>>> >>>> over it - we can't see how it's configured, how much >>>>>> resources are >>>>>> >>>> available, how resources are allocated among Apache projects, >>>>>> etc. >>>>>> >>>> The nice thing about having an account on travis-ci.com >>>>>> <http://travis-ci.com> >>>>>> >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> are: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> - relatively low cost with much better resource guarantee >>>>>> than what >>>>>> >>>> we currently have [1]: $249/month with 5 dedicated >>>>>> concurrency, >>>>>> >>>> $489/month with 10 concurrency >>>>>> >>>> - low maintenance work compared to using Jenkins >>>>>> >>>> - (potentially) no migration cost according to Travis's >>>>>> doc [2] >>>>>> >>>> (pending verification) >>>>>> >>>> - full control over the build capacity/configuration >>>>>> compared to >>>>>> >>>> using ASF INFRA's pool >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> I'd be surprised if we as such a vibrant community cannot >>>>>> find and >>>>>> >>>> fund $249*12=$2988 a year in exchange for a much better >>>>>> developer >>>>>> >>>> experience and much higher productivity. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> [1] https://travis-ci.com/plans >>>>>> >>>> [2] >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration >>>>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM Chesnay Schepler >>>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> So yes, the Jenkins job keeps pulling the state from >>>>>> Travis until it >>>>>> >>>> finishes. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Note sure I'm comfortable with the idea of using Jenkins >>>>>> workers >>>>>> >>>> just to >>>>>> >>>> idle for a several hours. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> On 29/06/2019 14:56, Jeff Zhang wrote: >>>>>> >>>> > Here's what zeppelin community did, we make a python >>>>>> script to >>>>>> >>>> check the >>>>>> >>>> > build status of pull request. >>>>>> >>>> > Here's script: >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/travis_check.py >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > And this is the script we used in Jenkins build job. >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > if [ -f "travis_check.py" ]; then >>>>>> >>>> > git log -n 1 >>>>>> >>>> > STATUS=$(curl -s $BUILD_URL | grep -e "GitHub pull >>>>>> >>>> request.*from.*" | sed >>>>>> >>>> > 's/.*GitHub pull request <a >>>>>> >>>> > href=\"\(https[^"]*\).*from[^"]*.\(https[^"]*\).*/\1 >>>>>> \2/g') >>>>>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(echo $STATUS | sed 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') >>>>>> >>>> > PR=$(echo $STATUS | awk '{print $1}' | sed >>>>>> >>>> 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') >>>>>> >>>> > #COMMIT=$(git log -n 1 | grep "^Merge:" | awk >>>>>> '{print $3}') >>>>>> >>>> > #if [ -z $COMMIT ]; then >>>>>> >>>> > # COMMIT=$(curl -s >>>>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR >>>>>> >>>> > | grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | >>>>>> tr '\n' ' ' >>>>>> >>>> | sed >>>>>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = '\n' | >>>>>> grep -v >>>>>> >>>> "apache:" | >>>>>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') >>>>>> >>>> > #fi >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > # get commit hash from PR >>>>>> >>>> > COMMIT=$(curl -s >>>>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR | >>>>>> >>>> > grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | tr >>>>>> '\n' ' ' >>>>>> >>>> | sed >>>>>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = '\n' | >>>>>> grep -v >>>>>> >>>> "apache:" | >>>>>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') >>>>>> >>>> > sleep 30 # sleep few moment to wait travis starts >>>>>> the build >>>>>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 >>>>>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || >>>>>> RET_CODE=$? >>>>>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # try with repository >>>>>> name when >>>>>> >>>> travis-ci is >>>>>> >>>> > not available in the account >>>>>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 >>>>>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(curl -s >>>>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR >>>>>> >>>> > | grep '"full_name":' | grep -v "apache/zeppelin" | >>>>>> sed >>>>>> >>>> > 's/.*[:][^"]*["]\([^/]*\).*/\1/g') >>>>>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || >>>>>> RET_CODE=$? >>>>>> >>>> > fi >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # fail with can't find >>>>>> build >>>>>> >>>> information in >>>>>> >>>> > the travis >>>>>> >>>> > set +x >>>>>> >>>> > echo >>>>>> "-----------------------------------------------------" >>>>>> >>>> > echo "Looks like travis-ci is not configured for >>>>>> your fork." >>>>>> >>>> > echo "Please setup by swich on 'zeppelin' >>>>>> repository at >>>>>> >>>> > https://travis-ci.org/profile and travis-ci." >>>>>> >>>> > echo "And then make sure 'Build branch updates' >>>>>> option is >>>>>> >>>> enabled in >>>>>> >>>> > the settings >>>>>> https://travis-ci.org/${AUTHOR}/zeppelin/settings >>>>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings> >>>>>> >>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings>." >>>>>> >>>> > echo "" >>>>>> >>>> > echo "To trigger CI after setup, you will need >>>>>> ammend your >>>>>> >>>> last commit >>>>>> >>>> > with" >>>>>> >>>> > echo "git commit --amend" >>>>>> >>>> > echo "git push your-remote HEAD --force" >>>>>> >>>> > echo "" >>>>>> >>>> > echo "See >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> http://zeppelin.apache.org/contribution/contributions.html#continuous-integration >>>>>> >>>> > ." >>>>>> >>>> > fi >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > exit $RET_CODE >>>>>> >>>> > else >>>>>> >>>> > set +x >>>>>> >>>> > echo "travis_check.py does not exists" >>>>>> >>>> > exit 1 >>>>>> >>>> > fi >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>> 于2019年6月29日周六 下午3:17写道： >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >> Does this imply that a Jenkins job is active as long >>>>>> as the >>>>>> >>>> Travis build >>>>>> >>>> >> runs? >>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>> >>>> >> On 26/06/2019 21:28, Bowen Li wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> @Dawid, I think the "long test running" as I >>>>>> mentioned in the >>>>>> >>>> first >>>>>> >>>> >> email, >>>>>> >>>> >>> also as you guys said, belongs to "a big effort >>>>>> which is much >>>>>> >>>> harder to >>>>>> >>>> >>> accomplish in a short period of time and may deserve >>>>>> its own >>>>>> >>>> separate >>>>>> >>>> >>> discussion". Thus I didn't include it in what we can >>>>>> do in a >>>>>> >>>> foreseeable >>>>>> >>>> >>> short term. >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> Besides, I don't think that's the ultimate reason >>>>>> for lack of >>>>>> >>>> build >>>>>> >>>> >>> resources. Even if the build is shortened to >>>>>> something like >>>>>> >>>> 2h, the >>>>>> >>>> >>> problems of no build machine works about 6 or more >>>>>> hours in >>>>>> >>>> PST daytime >>>>>> >>>> >>> that I described will still happen, because no >>>>>> machine from >>>>>> >>>> ASF INFRA's >>>>>> >>>> >>> pool is allocated to Flink. As I have paid close >>>>>> attention to >>>>>> >>>> the build >>>>>> >>>> >>> queue in the past few weekdays, it's a pretty clear >>>>>> pattern now. >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> **The ultimate root cause** for that is - we don't >>>>>> have any >>>>>> >>>> **dedicated** >>>>>> >>>> >>> build resources that we can stably rely on. I'm >>>>>> actually ok to >>>>>> >>>> wait for a >>>>>> >>>> >>> long time if there are build requests running, it >>>>>> means at >>>>>> >>>> least we are >>>>>> >>>> >>> making progress. But I'm not ok with no build >>>>>> resource. A >>>>>> >>>> better place I >>>>>> >>>> >>> think we should aim at in short term is to always >>>>>> have at >>>>>> >>>> least a central >>>>>> >>>> >>> pool (can be 3 or 5) of machines dedicated to build >>>>>> Flink at >>>>>> >>>> any time, or >>>>>> >>>> >>> maybe use users resources. >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> @Chesnay @Robert I synced with Jeff offline that >>>>>> Zeppelin >>>>>> >>>> community is >>>>>> >>>> >>> using a Jenkins job to automatically build on users' >>>>>> travis >>>>>> >>>> account and >>>>>> >>>> >>> link the result back to github PR. I guess the >>>>>> Jenkins job >>>>>> >>>> would fetch >>>>>> >>>> >>> latest upstream master and build the PR against it. >>>>>> Jeff has >>>>>> >>>> filed >>>>>> >>>> >> tickets >>>>>> >>>> >>> to learn and get access to the Jenkins infra. It'll >>>>>> better to >>>>>> >>>> fully >>>>>> >>>> >>> understand it first before judging this approach. >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> I also heard good things about CircleCI, and ASF >>>>>> INFRA seems >>>>>> >>>> to have a >>>>>> >>>> >> pool >>>>>> >>>> >>> of build capacity there too. Can be an alternative >>>>>> to consider. >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:44 AM Dawid Wysakowicz < >>>>>> >>>> >> [hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry to jump in late, but I think Bowen missed the >>>>>> most >>>>>> >>>> important point >>>>>> >>>> >>>> from Chesnay's previous message in the summary. The >>>>>> ultimate >>>>>> >>>> reason for >>>>>> >>>> >>>> all the problems is that the tests take close to 2 >>>>>> hours to >>>>>> >>>> run already. >>>>>> >>>> >>>> I fully support this claim: "Unless people start >>>>>> caring about >>>>>> >>>> test times >>>>>> >>>> >>>> before adding them, this issue cannot be solved" >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> This is also another reason why using user's Travis >>>>>> account >>>>>> >>>> won't help. >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Every few weeks we reach the user's time limit for >>>>>> a single >>>>>> >>>> profile. >>>>>> >>>> >>>> This makes the user's builds simply fail, until we >>>>>> either >>>>>> >>>> properly >>>>>> >>>> >>>> decrease the time the tests take (which I am not >>>>>> sure we ever >>>>>> >>>> did) or >>>>>> >>>> >>>> postpone the problem by splitting into more >>>>>> profiles. (Note >>>>>> >>>> that the ASF >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Travis account has higher time limits) >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Dawid >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> On 26/06/2019 09:36, Robert Metzger wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> Do we know if using "the best" available hardware >>>>>> would >>>>>> >>>> improve the >>>>>> >>>> >> build >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> times? >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> Imagine we would run the build on machines with >>>>>> plenty of >>>>>> >>>> main memory >>>>>> >>>> >> to >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> mount everything to ramdisk + the latest CPU >>>>>> architecture? >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> Throwing hardware at the problem could help reduce >>>>>> the time >>>>>> >>>> of an >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> individual build, and using our own infrastructure >>>>>> would >>>>>> >>>> remove our >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> dependency on Apache's Travis account (with the >>>>>> obvious >>>>>> >>>> downside of >>>>>> >>>> >>>> having >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> to maintain the infrastructure) >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> We could use an open source travis alternative, to >>>>>> have a >>>>>> >>>> similar >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> experience and make the migration easy. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:34 AM Chesnay Schepler >>>>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >From what I gathered, there's no special >>>>>> sauce that the >>>>>> >>>> Zeppelin >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> project uses which actually integrates a users >>>>>> Travis >>>>>> >>>> account into the >>>>>> >>>> >>>> PR. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> They just disabled Travis for PRs. And that's >>>>>> kind of it. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Naturally we can do this (duh) and safe the ASF a >>>>>> fair >>>>>> >>>> amount of >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> resources, but there are downsides: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> The discoverability of the Travis check takes a >>>>>> nose-dive. >>>>>> >>>> Either we >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> require every contributor to always, an every >>>>>> commit, also >>>>>> >>>> post a >>>>>> >>>> >> Travis >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> build, or we have the reviewer sift through the >>>>>> >>>> contributors account >>>>>> >>>> >> to >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> find it. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> This is rather cumbersome. Additionally, it's >>>>>> also not >>>>>> >>>> equivalent to >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> having a PR build. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> A normal branch build takes a branch as is and >>>>>> tests it. A >>>>>> >>>> PR build >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> merges the branch into master, and then runs it. >>>>>> (Fun fact: >>>>>> >>>> This is >>>>>> >>>> >> why >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> a PR without merge conflicts is not being run on >>>>>> Travis.) >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> And ultimately, everyone can already make use >>>>>> of this >>>>>> >>>> approach anyway. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> On 25/06/2019 08:02, Jark Wu wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jeff, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing the Zeppelin approach. I >>>>>> think it's a >>>>>> >>>> good idea to >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> leverage user's travis account. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> In this way, we can have almost unlimited >>>>>> concurrent build >>>>>> >>>> jobs and >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> developers can restart build by themselves >>>>>> (currently only >>>>>> >>>> committers >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> can restart PR's build). >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> But I'm still not very clear how to integrate >>>>>> user's >>>>>> >>>> travis build >>>>>> >>>> >> into >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> the Flink pull request's build automatically. >>>>>> Can you >>>>>> >>>> explain more in >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> detail? >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Another question: does travis only build >>>>>> branches for user >>>>>> >>>> account? >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> My concern is that builds for PRs will rebase >>>>>> user's >>>>>> >>>> commits against >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> current master branch. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> This will help us to find problems before >>>>>> merge. Builds >>>>>> >>>> for branches >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> will lose the impact of new commits in master. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> How does Zeppelin solve this problem? >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again for sharing the idea. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jark >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:01, Jeff Zhang >>>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Folks, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Zeppelin meet this kind of issue before, we >>>>>> solve >>>>>> >>>> it by >>>>>> >>>> >> delegating >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> each >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> one's PR build to his travis account >>>>>> (Everyone can >>>>>> >>>> have 5 free >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> slot for >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis build). >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Apache account travis build is only >>>>>> triggered when >>>>>> >>>> PR is merged. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Kurt Young <[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> 于2019年6月25日周二 上午10:16写道： >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > (Forgot to cc George) >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Best, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Kurt >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kurt Young >>>>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Hi Bowen, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Thanks for bringing this up. We >>>>>> actually have >>>>>> >>>> discussed >>>>>> >>>> >> about >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> this, and I >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > think Till and George have >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > already spend sometime investigating >>>>>> it. I have >>>>>> >>>> cced both of >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> them, and >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > maybe they can share >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > their findings. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Best, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Kurt >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:08 AM Jark Wu >>>>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Hi Bowen, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Thanks for bringing this. We also >>>>>> suffered from >>>>>> >>>> the long >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> build time. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I agree that we should focus on >>>>>> solving build >>>>>> >>>> capacity >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> problem in the >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> thread. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> My observation is there is only one >>>>>> build is >>>>>> >>>> running, all >>>>>> >>>> >> the >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> others >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> (other >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> PRs, master) are pending. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> The pricing plan[1] of travis shows >>>>>> it can >>>>>> >>>> support >>>>>> >>>> >> concurrent >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> build >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > jobs. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> But I don't know which plan we are >>>>>> using, might >>>>>> >>>> be the free >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan for >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > open >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> source. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I cc-ed Chesnay who may have some >>>>>> experience on >>>>>> >>>> Travis. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Regards, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Jark >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> [1]: https://travis-ci.com/plans >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 08:11, Bowen Li < >>>>>> >>>> >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > Hi Steven, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > I think you may not read what I >>>>>> wrote. The >>>>>> >>>> discussion is >>>>>> >>>> >>>> about >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > "unstable >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > build **capacity**", in another word >>>>>> >>>> "unstable / lack of >>>>>> >>>> >>>> build >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> resources", >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > not "unstable build". >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:40 PM >>>>>> Steven Wu >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > long and sometimes unstable build is >>>>>> >>>> definitely a pain >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> point. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > I suspect the build failure here in >>>>>> >>>> >> flink-connector-kafka >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> is not >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> related >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > to >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > my change. but there is no easy >>>>>> re-run the >>>>>> >>>> build on >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis UI. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > search showed a trick of >>>>>> close-and-open the >>>>>> >>>> PR will >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> trigger rebuild. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> but >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that could add noises to the PR >>>>>> activities. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/545555519 >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > travis-ci for my personal repo >>>>>> often failed >>>>>> >>>> with >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> exceeding time >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > limit >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > after >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 4+ hours. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > The job exceeded the maximum time >>>>>> limit for >>>>>> >>>> jobs, and >>>>>> >>>> >> has >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> been >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > terminated. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:15 PM >>>>>> Bowen Li >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/549681530 >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> This build >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > request >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > has >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > been sitting at **HEAD of the >>>>>> queue** >>>>>> >>>> since I first >>>>>> >>>> >> saw >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> it at PST >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 10:30am >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > (not sure how long it's been >>>>>> there before >>>>>> >>>> 10:30am). >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> It's PST >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > 4:12pm >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> now >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > and >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > it hasn't started yet. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:48 PM >>>>>> Bowen Li >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > Hi devs, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I've been experiencing the pain >>>>>> >>>> resulting from lack >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> of stable >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> build >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > capacity on Travis for Flink >>>>>> PRs [1]. >>>>>> >>>> >> Specifically, I >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> noticed >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> often >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > no >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build in the queue is making any >>>>>> >>>> progress for >>>>>> >>>> >> hours, >>>>>> >>>> >>>> and >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > suddenly >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> 5 >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > or >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 6 >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > builds kick off all together >>>>>> after the >>>>>> >>>> long pause. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> I'm at PST >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > (UTC-08) >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > time >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > zone, and I've seen pause can >>>>>> be as >>>>>> >>>> long as 6 hours >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> from PST 9am >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> to >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 3pm >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > (let alone the time needed to >>>>>> drain the >>>>>> >>>> queue >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> afterwards). >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I think this has greatly >>>>>> impacted our >>>>>> >>>> productivity. >>>>>> >>>> >>>> I've >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> experienced >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > PRs submitted in the early >>>>>> morning of >>>>>> >>>> PST time zone >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> won't finish >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > their >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build until late night of the >>>>>> same day. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > So my questions are: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - Has anyone else experienced >>>>>> the same >>>>>> >>>> problem or >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> have similar >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > observation >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > on TravisCI? (I suspect it >>>>>> has things >>>>>> >>>> to do with >>>>>> >>>> >> time >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> zone) >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - What pricing plan of >>>>>> TravisCI is >>>>>> >>>> Flink currently >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> using? Is it >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> the >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > free >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > plan for open source >>>>>> projects? What >>>>>> >>>> are the >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> guaranteed build >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> capacity >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > of >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > the current plan? >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - If the current pricing plan >>>>>> (either >>>>>> >>>> free or paid) >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> can't >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > provide >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > stable >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build capacity, can we >>>>>> upgrade to a >>>>>> >>>> higher priced >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan with >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > larger >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > and >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > more >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > stable build capacity? >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > BTW, another factor that >>>>>> contribute to >>>>>> >>>> the >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> productivity problem >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > is >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > that >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > our build is slow - we run >>>>>> full build >>>>>> >>>> for every PR >>>>>> >>>> >>>> and a >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> successful >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > full >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build takes ~5h. We >>>>>> definitely have >>>>>> >>>> more options to >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> solve it, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > for >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > instance, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > modularize the build graphs >>>>>> and reuse >>>>>> >>>> artifacts >>>>>> >>>> >> from >>>>>> >>>> >>>> the >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > previous >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > build. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > But I think that can be a big >>>>>> effort >>>>>> >>>> which is much >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> harder to >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > accomplish >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > in >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > a short period of time and >>>>>> may deserve >>>>>> >>>> its own >>>>>> >>>> >>>> separate >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> discussion. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > [1] >>>>>> >>>> >> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/pull_requests >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jeff Zhang >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> |
|
|
Hi Chesnay,
Can we assign Flink Committers the permission of flink-ci/flink repo? Several times, when I pushed some new commits, the old build jobs are still in pending and not canceled. Before we fix that, we can manually cancel some old jobs to save build resource. Best, Jark On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 16:17, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote: > Your best bet would be to check the first commit in the PR and check the > parent commit. > > To re-run things, you will have to rebase the PR on the latest master. > > On 10/07/2019 03:32, Kurt Young wrote: > > Thanks for all your efforts Chesnay, it indeed improves a lot for our > > develop experience. BTW, do you know how to find the master branch > > information which the CI runs with? > > > > For example, like this one: > > https://travis-ci.com/flink-ci/flink/jobs/214542568 > > It shows pass with the commits, which rebased on the master when the CI > > is triggered. But it's both possible that the master branch CI runs on is > > the > > same or different with current master. If it's the same, I can simply > rely > > on the > > passed information to push commits, but if it's not, I think i should > find > > another > > way to re-trigger tests based on the newest master. > > > > Do you know where can I get such information? > > > > Best, > > Kurt > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 3:27 AM Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > >> The kinks have been worked out; the bot is running again and pr builds > >> are yet again no longer running on ASF resources. > >> > >> PRs are mirrored to: https://github.com/flink-ci/flink > >> Bot source: https://github.com/flink-ci/ci-bot > >> > >> On 08/07/2019 17:14, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > >>> I have temporarily re-enabled running PR builds on the ASF account; > >>> migrating to the Travis subscription caused some issues in the bot > >>> that I have to fix first. > >>> > >>> On 07/07/2019 23:01, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > >>>> The vote has passed unanimously in favor of migrating to a separate > >>>> Travis account. > >>>> > >>>> I will now set things up such that no PullRequest is no longer run on > >>>> the ASF servers. > >>>> This is a major setup in reducing our usage of ASF resources. > >>>> For the time being we'll use free Travis plan for flink-ci (i.e. 5 > >>>> workers, which is the same the ASF gives us). Over the course of the > >>>> next week we'll setup the Ververica subscription to increase this > limit. > >>>> > >>>> From now now, a bot will mirror all new and updated PullRequests to a > >>>> mirror repository (https://github.com/flink-ci/flink-ci) and write an > >>>> update into the PR once the build is complete. > >>>> I have ran the bots for the past 3 days in parallel to our existing > >>>> Travis and it was working without major issues. > >>>> > >>>> The biggest change that contributors will see is that there's no > >>>> longer a icon next to each commit. We may revisit this in the future. > >>>> > >>>> I'll setup a repo with the source of the bot later. > >>>> > >>>> On 04/07/2019 10:46, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > >>>>> I've raised a JIRA > >>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18703>with INFRA to > >>>>> inquire whether it would be possible to switch to a different Travis > >>>>> account, and if so what steps would need to be taken. > >>>>> We need a proper confirmation from INFRA since we are not in full > >>>>> control of the flink repository (for example, we cannot access the > >>>>> settings page). > >>>>> > >>>>> If this is indeed possible, Ververica is willing sponsor a Travis > >>>>> account for the Flink project. > >>>>> This would provide us with more than enough resources than we need. > >>>>> > >>>>> Since this makes the project more reliant on resources provided by > >>>>> external companies I would like to vote on this. > >>>>> > >>>>> Please vote on this proposal, as follows: > >>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis > >>>>> account, provided that INFRA approves > >>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approach the migration to a Ververica-sponsored > >>>>> Travis account > >>>>> > >>>>> The vote will be open for at least 24h, and until we have > >>>>> confirmation from INFRA. The voting period may be shorter than the > >>>>> usual 3 days since our current is effectively not working. > >>>>> > >>>>> On 04/07/2019 06:51, Bowen Li wrote: > >>>>>> Re: > Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to > >>>>>> an entirely different CI service? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I reached out to Wes and Krisztián from Apache Arrow PMC. They are > >>>>>> currently moving away from ASF's Travis to their own in-house metal > >>>>>> machines at [1] with custom CI application at [2]. They've seen > >>>>>> significant improvement w.r.t both much higher performance and > >>>>>> basically no resource waiting time, "night-and-day" difference > >>>>>> quoting Wes. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Re: > If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our > >>>>>> project, then this might be something we can do fairly quickly? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I believe so, according to [3] and [4] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [1] https://ci.ursalabs.org/ <https://ci.ursalabs.org/#/> > >>>>>> [2] https://github.com/ursa-labs/ursabot > >>>>>> [3] > >>>>>> > >> > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration > >>>>>> [4] > >>>>>> > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-on-travis-ci-com > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:01 AM Chesnay Schepler > >>>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to > an > >>>>>> entirely different CI service? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our > >>>>>> project, then > >>>>>> this might be something we can do fairly quickly? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 03/07/2019 05:55, Bowen Li wrote: > >>>>>> > I responded in the INFRA ticket [1] that I believe they are > >>>>>> using a wrong > >>>>>> > metric against Flink and the total build time is a completely > >>>>>> different > >>>>>> > thing than guaranteed build capacity. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > My response: > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > "As mentioned above, since I started to pay attention to > Flink's > >>>>>> build > >>>>>> > queue a few tens of days ago, I'm in Seattle and I saw no > build > >>>>>> was kicking > >>>>>> > off in PST daytime in weekdays for Flink. Our teammates in > China > >>>>>> and Europe > >>>>>> > have also reported similar observations. So we need to > evaluate > >>>>>> how the > >>>>>> > large total build time came from - if 1) your number and 2) > our > >>>>>> > observations from three locations that cover pretty much a > full > >>>>>> day, are > >>>>>> > all true, I **guess** one reason can be that - highly likely > the > >>>>>> extra > >>>>>> > build time came from weekends when other Apache projects may > be > >>>>>> idle and > >>>>>> > Flink just drains hard its congested queue. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack > of > >>>>>> resources > >>>>>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, > >>>>>> dedicated** > >>>>>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even > if > >>>>>> no build is > >>>>>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head > >>>>>> in PST > >>>>>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an > absurd > >>>>>> amount of > >>>>>> > waiting time. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system > and > >>>>>> grants > >>>>>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for > >>>>>> Flink, that'll > >>>>>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack > of > >>>>>> resources > >>>>>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, > >>>>>> dedicated** > >>>>>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even > if > >>>>>> no build is > >>>>>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head > >>>>>> in PST > >>>>>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an > absurd > >>>>>> amount of > >>>>>> > waiting time. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system > and > >>>>>> grants > >>>>>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for > >>>>>> Flink, that'll > >>>>>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > I feel what's missing in the ASF INFRA's Travis resource > pool is > >>>>>> some level > >>>>>> > of build capacity SLAs and certainty" > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > Again, I believe there are differences in nature of these two > >>>>>> problems, > >>>>>> > long build time v.s. lack of dedicated build resource. That's > >>>>>> saying, > >>>>>> > shortening build time may relieve the situation, and may not. > >>>>>> I'm sightly > >>>>>> > negative on disabling IT cases for PRs, due to the downside > is > >>>>>> that we are > >>>>>> > at risk of any potential bugs in PR that UTs doesn't catch, > and > >>>>>> may cost a > >>>>>> > lot more to fix and if it slows others down or even block > >>>>>> others, but am > >>>>>> > open to others opinions on it. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > AFAICT from INFRA ticket[1], donating to ASF INFRA won't be > >>>>>> feasible to > >>>>>> > solve our problem since INFRA's pool is fully shared and they > >>>>>> have no > >>>>>> > control and finer insights over resource allocation to a > >>>>>> specific Apache > >>>>>> > project. As mentioned in [1], Apache Arrow is moving away > from > >>>>>> ASF INFRA > >>>>>> > Travis pool (they are actually surprised Flink hasn't plan > to do > >>>>>> so). I > >>>>>> > know that Spark is on its own build infra. If we all agree > that > >>>>>> funding our > >>>>>> > own build infra, I'd be glad to help investigate any > potential > >>>>>> options > >>>>>> > after releasing 1.9 since I'm super busy with 1.9 now. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:46 AM Chesnay Schepler > >>>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> >> As a short-term stopgap, since we can assume this issue to > >>>>>> become much > >>>>>> >> worse in the following days/weeks, we could disable IT > cases in > >>>>>> PRs and > >>>>>> >> only run them on master. > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> On 02/07/2019 12:03, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > >>>>>> >>> People really have to stop thinking that just because > >>>>>> something works > >>>>>> >>> for us it is also a good solution. > >>>>>> >>> Also, please remember that our builds run for 2h from > start to > >>>>>> finish, > >>>>>> >>> and not the 14 _minutes_ it takes for zeppelin. > >>>>>> >>> We are dealing with an entirely different scale here, both > in > >>>>>> terms of > >>>>>> >>> build times and number of builds. > >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>> In this very thread people have been complaining about long > >>>>>> queue > >>>>>> >>> times for their builds. Surprise, other Apache projects > >>>>>> have been > >>>>>> >>> suffering the very same thing due to us not controlling our > >>>>>> build > >>>>>> >>> times. While switching services (be it Jenkins, CircleCI or > >>>>>> whatever) > >>>>>> >>> will possibly work for us (and these options are actually > >>>>>> attractive, > >>>>>> >>> like CircleCI's proper support for build artifacts), it > >>>>>> will also > >>>>>> >>> result in us likely negatively affecting other projects in > >>>>>> significant > >>>>>> >>> ways. > >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>> Sure, the Jenkins setup has a good user experience for us, > at > >>>>>> the cost > >>>>>> >>> of blocking Jenkins workers for a _lot_ of time. Right now > we > >>>>>> have 25 > >>>>>> >>> PR's in our queue; that's possibly 50h we'd consume of > Jenkins > >>>>>> >>> resources, and the European contributors haven't even > really > >>>>>> started yet. > >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>> FYI, the latest INFRA response from INFRA-18533: > >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>> "Our rough metrics shows that Flink used over 5800 hours of > >>>>>> build time > >>>>>> >>> last month. That is equal to EIGHT servers running 24/7 for > >>>>>> the ENTIRE > >>>>>> >>> MONTH. EIGHT. nonstop. > >>>>>> >>> When we discovered this last night, we discussed it some > and > >>>>>> are going > >>>>>> >>> to tune down Flink to allow only five executors maximum. We > >>>>>> cannot > >>>>>> >>> allow Flink to consume so much of a Foundation shared > >>>>>> resource." > >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>> So yes, we either > >>>>>> >>> a) have to heavily reduce our CI usage or > >>>>>> >>> b) fund our own, either maintaining it ourselves or > donating > >>>>>> to Apache. > >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>> On 02/07/2019 05:11, Bowen Li wrote: > >>>>>> >>>> By looking at the git history of the Jenkins script, its > core > >>>>>> part > >>>>>> >>>> was finished in March 2017 (and only two minor update in > >>>>>> 2017/2018), > >>>>>> >>>> so it's been running for over two years now and feels like > >>>>>> Zepplin > >>>>>> >>>> community has been quite happy with it. @Jeff Zhang > >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> can > you > >>>>>> share your insights and user > >>>>>> >>>> experience with the Jenkins+Travis approach? > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> Things like: > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> - has the approach completely solved the resource capacity > >>>>>> problem > >>>>>> >>>> for Zepplin community? is Zepplin community happy with the > >>>>>> result? > >>>>>> >>>> - is the whole configuration chain stable (e.g. uptime) > >>>>>> enough? > >>>>>> >>>> - how often do you need to maintain the Jenkins infra? how > >>>>>> many > >>>>>> >>>> people are usually involved in maintenance and bug-fixes? > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> The downside of this approach seems mostly to be on the > >>>>>> maintenance > >>>>>> >>>> to me - maintain the script and Jenkins infra. > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> ** Having Our Own Travis-CI.com Account ** > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> Another alternative I've been thinking of is to have our > own > >>>>>> >>>> travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> < > http://travis-ci.com> > >>>>>> account with paid dedicated > >>>>>> >>>> resources. Note travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> > >>>>>> <http://travis-ci.org> is the free > >>>>>> >>>> version and travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> > >>>>>> <http://travis-ci.com> is the commercial > >>>>>> >>>> version. We currently use a shared resource pool managed > by > >>>>>> ASK INFRA > >>>>>> >>>> team on travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> > >>>>>> <http://travis-ci.org>, but we have no control > >>>>>> >>>> over it - we can't see how it's configured, how much > >>>>>> resources are > >>>>>> >>>> available, how resources are allocated among Apache > projects, > >>>>>> etc. > >>>>>> >>>> The nice thing about having an account on travis-ci.com > >>>>>> <http://travis-ci.com> > >>>>>> >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> are: > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> - relatively low cost with much better resource guarantee > >>>>>> than what > >>>>>> >>>> we currently have [1]: $249/month with 5 dedicated > >>>>>> concurrency, > >>>>>> >>>> $489/month with 10 concurrency > >>>>>> >>>> - low maintenance work compared to using Jenkins > >>>>>> >>>> - (potentially) no migration cost according to Travis's > >>>>>> doc [2] > >>>>>> >>>> (pending verification) > >>>>>> >>>> - full control over the build capacity/configuration > >>>>>> compared to > >>>>>> >>>> using ASF INFRA's pool > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> I'd be surprised if we as such a vibrant community cannot > >>>>>> find and > >>>>>> >>>> fund $249*12=$2988 a year in exchange for a much better > >>>>>> developer > >>>>>> >>>> experience and much higher productivity. > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> [1] https://travis-ci.com/plans > >>>>>> >>>> [2] > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> > >> > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration > >>>>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM Chesnay Schepler > >>>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> So yes, the Jenkins job keeps pulling the state from > >>>>>> Travis until it > >>>>>> >>>> finishes. > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> Note sure I'm comfortable with the idea of using > Jenkins > >>>>>> workers > >>>>>> >>>> just to > >>>>>> >>>> idle for a several hours. > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> On 29/06/2019 14:56, Jeff Zhang wrote: > >>>>>> >>>> > Here's what zeppelin community did, we make a > python > >>>>>> script to > >>>>>> >>>> check the > >>>>>> >>>> > build status of pull request. > >>>>>> >>>> > Here's script: > >>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/travis_check.py > >>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>> >>>> > And this is the script we used in Jenkins build > job. > >>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>> >>>> > if [ -f "travis_check.py" ]; then > >>>>>> >>>> > git log -n 1 > >>>>>> >>>> > STATUS=$(curl -s $BUILD_URL | grep -e "GitHub > pull > >>>>>> >>>> request.*from.*" | sed > >>>>>> >>>> > 's/.*GitHub pull request <a > >>>>>> >>>> > > href=\"\(https[^"]*\).*from[^"]*.\(https[^"]*\).*/\1 > >>>>>> \2/g') > >>>>>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(echo $STATUS | sed > 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') > >>>>>> >>>> > PR=$(echo $STATUS | awk '{print $1}' | sed > >>>>>> >>>> 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') > >>>>>> >>>> > #COMMIT=$(git log -n 1 | grep "^Merge:" | awk > >>>>>> '{print $3}') > >>>>>> >>>> > #if [ -z $COMMIT ]; then > >>>>>> >>>> > # COMMIT=$(curl -s > >>>>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR > >>>>>> >>>> > | grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" > | > >>>>>> tr '\n' ' ' > >>>>>> >>>> | sed > >>>>>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = > '\n' | > >>>>>> grep -v > >>>>>> >>>> "apache:" | > >>>>>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') > >>>>>> >>>> > #fi > >>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>> >>>> > # get commit hash from PR > >>>>>> >>>> > COMMIT=$(curl -s > >>>>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR | > >>>>>> >>>> > grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | > tr > >>>>>> '\n' ' ' > >>>>>> >>>> | sed > >>>>>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = > '\n' | > >>>>>> grep -v > >>>>>> >>>> "apache:" | > >>>>>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') > >>>>>> >>>> > sleep 30 # sleep few moment to wait travis > starts > >>>>>> the build > >>>>>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 > >>>>>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || > >>>>>> RET_CODE=$? > >>>>>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # try with > repository > >>>>>> name when > >>>>>> >>>> travis-ci is > >>>>>> >>>> > not available in the account > >>>>>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 > >>>>>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(curl -s > >>>>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR > >>>>>> >>>> > | grep '"full_name":' | grep -v "apache/zeppelin" | > >>>>>> sed > >>>>>> >>>> > 's/.*[:][^"]*["]\([^/]*\).*/\1/g') > >>>>>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || > >>>>>> RET_CODE=$? > >>>>>> >>>> > fi > >>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # fail with can't > find > >>>>>> build > >>>>>> >>>> information in > >>>>>> >>>> > the travis > >>>>>> >>>> > set +x > >>>>>> >>>> > echo > >>>>>> "-----------------------------------------------------" > >>>>>> >>>> > echo "Looks like travis-ci is not configured > for > >>>>>> your fork." > >>>>>> >>>> > echo "Please setup by swich on 'zeppelin' > >>>>>> repository at > >>>>>> >>>> > https://travis-ci.org/profile and travis-ci." > >>>>>> >>>> > echo "And then make sure 'Build branch > updates' > >>>>>> option is > >>>>>> >>>> enabled in > >>>>>> >>>> > the settings > >>>>>> https://travis-ci.org/${AUTHOR}/zeppelin/settings > >>>>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings> > >>>>>> >>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings>." > >>>>>> >>>> > echo "" > >>>>>> >>>> > echo "To trigger CI after setup, you will need > >>>>>> ammend your > >>>>>> >>>> last commit > >>>>>> >>>> > with" > >>>>>> >>>> > echo "git commit --amend" > >>>>>> >>>> > echo "git push your-remote HEAD --force" > >>>>>> >>>> > echo "" > >>>>>> >>>> > echo "See > >>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> > >> > http://zeppelin.apache.org/contribution/contributions.html#continuous-integration > >>>>>> >>>> > ." > >>>>>> >>>> > fi > >>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>> >>>> > exit $RET_CODE > >>>>>> >>>> > else > >>>>>> >>>> > set +x > >>>>>> >>>> > echo "travis_check.py does not exists" > >>>>>> >>>> > exit 1 > >>>>>> >>>> > fi > >>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>> >>>> > Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto: > [hidden email] > >>>>>> 于2019年6月29日周六 下午3:17写道： > >>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>> >>>> >> Does this imply that a Jenkins job is active as > long > >>>>>> as the > >>>>>> >>>> Travis build > >>>>>> >>>> >> runs? > >>>>>> >>>> >> > >>>>>> >>>> >> On 26/06/2019 21:28, Bowen Li wrote: > >>>>>> >>>> >>> Hi, > >>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>> @Dawid, I think the "long test running" as I > >>>>>> mentioned in the > >>>>>> >>>> first > >>>>>> >>>> >> email, > >>>>>> >>>> >>> also as you guys said, belongs to "a big effort > >>>>>> which is much > >>>>>> >>>> harder to > >>>>>> >>>> >>> accomplish in a short period of time and may > deserve > >>>>>> its own > >>>>>> >>>> separate > >>>>>> >>>> >>> discussion". Thus I didn't include it in what we > can > >>>>>> do in a > >>>>>> >>>> foreseeable > >>>>>> >>>> >>> short term. > >>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>> Besides, I don't think that's the ultimate reason > >>>>>> for lack of > >>>>>> >>>> build > >>>>>> >>>> >>> resources. Even if the build is shortened to > >>>>>> something like > >>>>>> >>>> 2h, the > >>>>>> >>>> >>> problems of no build machine works about 6 or > more > >>>>>> hours in > >>>>>> >>>> PST daytime > >>>>>> >>>> >>> that I described will still happen, because no > >>>>>> machine from > >>>>>> >>>> ASF INFRA's > >>>>>> >>>> >>> pool is allocated to Flink. As I have paid close > >>>>>> attention to > >>>>>> >>>> the build > >>>>>> >>>> >>> queue in the past few weekdays, it's a pretty > clear > >>>>>> pattern now. > >>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>> **The ultimate root cause** for that is - we > don't > >>>>>> have any > >>>>>> >>>> **dedicated** > >>>>>> >>>> >>> build resources that we can stably rely on. I'm > >>>>>> actually ok to > >>>>>> >>>> wait for a > >>>>>> >>>> >>> long time if there are build requests running, it > >>>>>> means at > >>>>>> >>>> least we are > >>>>>> >>>> >>> making progress. But I'm not ok with no build > >>>>>> resource. A > >>>>>> >>>> better place I > >>>>>> >>>> >>> think we should aim at in short term is to always > >>>>>> have at > >>>>>> >>>> least a central > >>>>>> >>>> >>> pool (can be 3 or 5) of machines dedicated to > build > >>>>>> Flink at > >>>>>> >>>> any time, or > >>>>>> >>>> >>> maybe use users resources. > >>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>> @Chesnay @Robert I synced with Jeff offline that > >>>>>> Zeppelin > >>>>>> >>>> community is > >>>>>> >>>> >>> using a Jenkins job to automatically build on > users' > >>>>>> travis > >>>>>> >>>> account and > >>>>>> >>>> >>> link the result back to github PR. I guess the > >>>>>> Jenkins job > >>>>>> >>>> would fetch > >>>>>> >>>> >>> latest upstream master and build the PR against > it. > >>>>>> Jeff has > >>>>>> >>>> filed > >>>>>> >>>> >> tickets > >>>>>> >>>> >>> to learn and get access to the Jenkins infra. > It'll > >>>>>> better to > >>>>>> >>>> fully > >>>>>> >>>> >>> understand it first before judging this approach. > >>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>> I also heard good things about CircleCI, and ASF > >>>>>> INFRA seems > >>>>>> >>>> to have a > >>>>>> >>>> >> pool > >>>>>> >>>> >>> of build capacity there too. Can be an > alternative > >>>>>> to consider. > >>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:44 AM Dawid > Wysakowicz < > >>>>>> >>>> >> [hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>> wrote: > >>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry to jump in late, but I think Bowen missed > the > >>>>>> most > >>>>>> >>>> important point > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> from Chesnay's previous message in the summary. > The > >>>>>> ultimate > >>>>>> >>>> reason for > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> all the problems is that the tests take close > to 2 > >>>>>> hours to > >>>>>> >>>> run already. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> I fully support this claim: "Unless people start > >>>>>> caring about > >>>>>> >>>> test times > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> before adding them, this issue cannot be solved" > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> This is also another reason why using user's > Travis > >>>>>> account > >>>>>> >>>> won't help. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Every few weeks we reach the user's time limit > for > >>>>>> a single > >>>>>> >>>> profile. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> This makes the user's builds simply fail, until > we > >>>>>> either > >>>>>> >>>> properly > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> decrease the time the tests take (which I am not > >>>>>> sure we ever > >>>>>> >>>> did) or > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> postpone the problem by splitting into more > >>>>>> profiles. (Note > >>>>>> >>>> that the ASF > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Travis account has higher time limits) > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Best, > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Dawid > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> On 26/06/2019 09:36, Robert Metzger wrote: > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> Do we know if using "the best" available > hardware > >>>>>> would > >>>>>> >>>> improve the > >>>>>> >>>> >> build > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> times? > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> Imagine we would run the build on machines with > >>>>>> plenty of > >>>>>> >>>> main memory > >>>>>> >>>> >> to > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> mount everything to ramdisk + the latest CPU > >>>>>> architecture? > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> Throwing hardware at the problem could help > reduce > >>>>>> the time > >>>>>> >>>> of an > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> individual build, and using our own > infrastructure > >>>>>> would > >>>>>> >>>> remove our > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> dependency on Apache's Travis account (with the > >>>>>> obvious > >>>>>> >>>> downside of > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> having > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> to maintain the infrastructure) > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> We could use an open source travis > alternative, to > >>>>>> have a > >>>>>> >>>> similar > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> experience and make the migration easy. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:34 AM Chesnay > Schepler > >>>>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >From what I gathered, there's no special > >>>>>> sauce that the > >>>>>> >>>> Zeppelin > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> project uses which actually integrates a users > >>>>>> Travis > >>>>>> >>>> account into the > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> PR. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> They just disabled Travis for PRs. And that's > >>>>>> kind of it. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Naturally we can do this (duh) and safe the > ASF a > >>>>>> fair > >>>>>> >>>> amount of > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> resources, but there are downsides: > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> The discoverability of the Travis check takes > a > >>>>>> nose-dive. > >>>>>> >>>> Either we > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> require every contributor to always, an every > >>>>>> commit, also > >>>>>> >>>> post a > >>>>>> >>>> >> Travis > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> build, or we have the reviewer sift through > the > >>>>>> >>>> contributors account > >>>>>> >>>> >> to > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> find it. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> This is rather cumbersome. Additionally, it's > >>>>>> also not > >>>>>> >>>> equivalent to > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> having a PR build. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> A normal branch build takes a branch as is and > >>>>>> tests it. A > >>>>>> >>>> PR build > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> merges the branch into master, and then runs > it. > >>>>>> (Fun fact: > >>>>>> >>>> This is > >>>>>> >>>> >> why > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> a PR without merge conflicts is not being run > on > >>>>>> Travis.) > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> And ultimately, everyone can already make use > >>>>>> of this > >>>>>> >>>> approach anyway. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> On 25/06/2019 08:02, Jark Wu wrote: > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jeff, > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing the Zeppelin approach. I > >>>>>> think it's a > >>>>>> >>>> good idea to > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> leverage user's travis account. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> In this way, we can have almost unlimited > >>>>>> concurrent build > >>>>>> >>>> jobs and > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> developers can restart build by themselves > >>>>>> (currently only > >>>>>> >>>> committers > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> can restart PR's build). > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> But I'm still not very clear how to integrate > >>>>>> user's > >>>>>> >>>> travis build > >>>>>> >>>> >> into > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> the Flink pull request's build automatically. > >>>>>> Can you > >>>>>> >>>> explain more in > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> detail? > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Another question: does travis only build > >>>>>> branches for user > >>>>>> >>>> account? > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> My concern is that builds for PRs will rebase > >>>>>> user's > >>>>>> >>>> commits against > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> current master branch. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> This will help us to find problems before > >>>>>> merge. Builds > >>>>>> >>>> for branches > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> will lose the impact of new commits in > master. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> How does Zeppelin solve this problem? > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again for sharing the idea. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jark > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:01, Jeff Zhang > >>>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Folks, > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Zeppelin meet this kind of issue before, we > >>>>>> solve > >>>>>> >>>> it by > >>>>>> >>>> >> delegating > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> each > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> one's PR build to his travis account > >>>>>> (Everyone can > >>>>>> >>>> have 5 free > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> slot for > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis build). > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Apache account travis build is only > >>>>>> triggered when > >>>>>> >>>> PR is merged. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Kurt Young <[hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> 于2019年6月25日周二 上午10:16写道： > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > (Forgot to cc George) > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Best, > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Kurt > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kurt > Young > >>>>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Hi Bowen, > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Thanks for bringing this up. We > >>>>>> actually have > >>>>>> >>>> discussed > >>>>>> >>>> >> about > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> this, and I > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > think Till and George have > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > already spend sometime investigating > >>>>>> it. I have > >>>>>> >>>> cced both of > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> them, and > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > maybe they can share > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > their findings. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Best, > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Kurt > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:08 AM Jark Wu > >>>>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Hi Bowen, > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Thanks for bringing this. We also > >>>>>> suffered from > >>>>>> >>>> the long > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> build time. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I agree that we should focus on > >>>>>> solving build > >>>>>> >>>> capacity > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> problem in the > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> thread. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> My observation is there is only one > >>>>>> build is > >>>>>> >>>> running, all > >>>>>> >>>> >> the > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> others > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> (other > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> PRs, master) are pending. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> The pricing plan[1] of travis shows > >>>>>> it can > >>>>>> >>>> support > >>>>>> >>>> >> concurrent > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> build > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > jobs. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> But I don't know which plan we are > >>>>>> using, might > >>>>>> >>>> be the free > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan for > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > open > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> source. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I cc-ed Chesnay who may have some > >>>>>> experience on > >>>>>> >>>> Travis. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Regards, > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Jark > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> [1]: https://travis-ci.com/plans > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 08:11, Bowen Li > < > >>>>>> >>>> >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > Hi Steven, > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > I think you may not read what I > >>>>>> wrote. The > >>>>>> >>>> discussion is > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> about > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > "unstable > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > build **capacity**", in another word > >>>>>> >>>> "unstable / lack of > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> build > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> resources", > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > not "unstable build". > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:40 PM > >>>>>> Steven Wu > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > long and sometimes unstable build > is > >>>>>> >>>> definitely a pain > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> point. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > I suspect the build failure here in > >>>>>> >>>> >> flink-connector-kafka > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> is not > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> related > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > to > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > my change. but there is no easy > >>>>>> re-run the > >>>>>> >>>> build on > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis UI. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > search showed a trick of > >>>>>> close-and-open the > >>>>>> >>>> PR will > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> trigger rebuild. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> but > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that could add noises to the PR > >>>>>> activities. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/545555519 > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > travis-ci for my personal repo > >>>>>> often failed > >>>>>> >>>> with > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> exceeding time > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > limit > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > after > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 4+ hours. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > The job exceeded the maximum time > >>>>>> limit for > >>>>>> >>>> jobs, and > >>>>>> >>>> >> has > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> been > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > terminated. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:15 PM > >>>>>> Bowen Li > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto: > [hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/549681530 > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> This build > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > request > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > has > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > been sitting at **HEAD of the > >>>>>> queue** > >>>>>> >>>> since I first > >>>>>> >>>> >> saw > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> it at PST > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 10:30am > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > (not sure how long it's been > >>>>>> there before > >>>>>> >>>> 10:30am). > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> It's PST > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > 4:12pm > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> now > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > and > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > it hasn't started yet. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:48 PM > >>>>>> Bowen Li > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto: > [hidden email] > >>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> wrote: > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > Hi devs, > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I've been experiencing the pain > >>>>>> >>>> resulting from lack > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> of stable > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> build > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > capacity on Travis for Flink > >>>>>> PRs [1]. > >>>>>> >>>> >> Specifically, I > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> noticed > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> often > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > no > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build in the queue is making > any > >>>>>> >>>> progress for > >>>>>> >>>> >> hours, > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> and > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > suddenly > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> 5 > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > or > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 6 > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > builds kick off all together > >>>>>> after the > >>>>>> >>>> long pause. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> I'm at PST > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > (UTC-08) > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > time > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > zone, and I've seen pause can > >>>>>> be as > >>>>>> >>>> long as 6 hours > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> from PST 9am > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> to > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 3pm > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > (let alone the time needed to > >>>>>> drain the > >>>>>> >>>> queue > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> afterwards). > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I think this has greatly > >>>>>> impacted our > >>>>>> >>>> productivity. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> I've > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> experienced > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > PRs submitted in the early > >>>>>> morning of > >>>>>> >>>> PST time zone > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> won't finish > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > their > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build until late night of the > >>>>>> same day. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > So my questions are: > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - Has anyone else experienced > >>>>>> the same > >>>>>> >>>> problem or > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> have similar > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > observation > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > on TravisCI? (I suspect it > >>>>>> has things > >>>>>> >>>> to do with > >>>>>> >>>> >> time > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> zone) > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - What pricing plan of > >>>>>> TravisCI is > >>>>>> >>>> Flink currently > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> using? Is it > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> the > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > free > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > plan for open source > >>>>>> projects? What > >>>>>> >>>> are the > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> guaranteed build > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> capacity > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > of > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > the current plan? > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - If the current pricing plan > >>>>>> (either > >>>>>> >>>> free or paid) > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> can't > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > provide > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > stable > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build capacity, can we > >>>>>> upgrade to a > >>>>>> >>>> higher priced > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan with > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > larger > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > and > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > more > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > stable build capacity? > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > BTW, another factor that > >>>>>> contribute to > >>>>>> >>>> the > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> productivity problem > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > is > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > that > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > our build is slow - we run > >>>>>> full build > >>>>>> >>>> for every PR > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> and a > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> successful > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > full > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build takes ~5h. We > >>>>>> definitely have > >>>>>> >>>> more options to > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> solve it, > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > for > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > instance, > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > modularize the build graphs > >>>>>> and reuse > >>>>>> >>>> artifacts > >>>>>> >>>> >> from > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> the > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > previous > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > build. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > But I think that can be a big > >>>>>> effort > >>>>>> >>>> which is much > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> harder to > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > accomplish > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > in > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > a short period of time and > >>>>>> may deserve > >>>>>> >>>> its own > >>>>>> >>>> >>>> separate > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> discussion. > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > [1] > >>>>>> >>>> >> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/pull_requests > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jeff Zhang > >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > |
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Migrate to sponsored Travis account
|
|
I'm currently modifying the cibot to do this automatically; should be
finished until Monday. On 02/08/2019 07:41, Jark Wu wrote: > Hi Chesnay, > > Can we assign Flink Committers the permission of flink-ci/flink repo? > Several times, when I pushed some new commits, the old build jobs are still > in pending and not canceled. > Before we fix that, we can manually cancel some old jobs to save build > resource. > > Best, > Jark > > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 16:17, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Your best bet would be to check the first commit in the PR and check the >> parent commit. >> >> To re-run things, you will have to rebase the PR on the latest master. >> >> On 10/07/2019 03:32, Kurt Young wrote: >>> Thanks for all your efforts Chesnay, it indeed improves a lot for our >>> develop experience. BTW, do you know how to find the master branch >>> information which the CI runs with? >>> >>> For example, like this one: >>> https://travis-ci.com/flink-ci/flink/jobs/214542568 >>> It shows pass with the commits, which rebased on the master when the CI >>> is triggered. But it's both possible that the master branch CI runs on is >>> the >>> same or different with current master. If it's the same, I can simply >> rely >>> on the >>> passed information to push commits, but if it's not, I think i should >> find >>> another >>> way to re-trigger tests based on the newest master. >>> >>> Do you know where can I get such information? >>> >>> Best, >>> Kurt >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 3:27 AM Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >>>> The kinks have been worked out; the bot is running again and pr builds >>>> are yet again no longer running on ASF resources. >>>> >>>> PRs are mirrored to: https://github.com/flink-ci/flink >>>> Bot source: https://github.com/flink-ci/ci-bot >>>> >>>> On 08/07/2019 17:14, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >>>>> I have temporarily re-enabled running PR builds on the ASF account; >>>>> migrating to the Travis subscription caused some issues in the bot >>>>> that I have to fix first. >>>>> >>>>> On 07/07/2019 23:01, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >>>>>> The vote has passed unanimously in favor of migrating to a separate >>>>>> Travis account. >>>>>> >>>>>> I will now set things up such that no PullRequest is no longer run on >>>>>> the ASF servers. >>>>>> This is a major setup in reducing our usage of ASF resources. >>>>>> For the time being we'll use free Travis plan for flink-ci (i.e. 5 >>>>>> workers, which is the same the ASF gives us). Over the course of the >>>>>> next week we'll setup the Ververica subscription to increase this >> limit. >>>>>> From now now, a bot will mirror all new and updated PullRequests to a >>>>>> mirror repository (https://github.com/flink-ci/flink-ci) and write an >>>>>> update into the PR once the build is complete. >>>>>> I have ran the bots for the past 3 days in parallel to our existing >>>>>> Travis and it was working without major issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> The biggest change that contributors will see is that there's no >>>>>> longer a icon next to each commit. We may revisit this in the future. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll setup a repo with the source of the bot later. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 04/07/2019 10:46, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >>>>>>> I've raised a JIRA >>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18703>with INFRA to >>>>>>> inquire whether it would be possible to switch to a different Travis >>>>>>> account, and if so what steps would need to be taken. >>>>>>> We need a proper confirmation from INFRA since we are not in full >>>>>>> control of the flink repository (for example, we cannot access the >>>>>>> settings page). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If this is indeed possible, Ververica is willing sponsor a Travis >>>>>>> account for the Flink project. >>>>>>> This would provide us with more than enough resources than we need. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since this makes the project more reliant on resources provided by >>>>>>> external companies I would like to vote on this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please vote on this proposal, as follows: >>>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis >>>>>>> account, provided that INFRA approves >>>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approach the migration to a Ververica-sponsored >>>>>>> Travis account >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 24h, and until we have >>>>>>> confirmation from INFRA. The voting period may be shorter than the >>>>>>> usual 3 days since our current is effectively not working. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 04/07/2019 06:51, Bowen Li wrote: >>>>>>>> Re: > Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to >>>>>>>> an entirely different CI service? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I reached out to Wes and Krisztián from Apache Arrow PMC. They are >>>>>>>> currently moving away from ASF's Travis to their own in-house metal >>>>>>>> machines at [1] with custom CI application at [2]. They've seen >>>>>>>> significant improvement w.r.t both much higher performance and >>>>>>>> basically no resource waiting time, "night-and-day" difference >>>>>>>> quoting Wes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Re: > If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our >>>>>>>> project, then this might be something we can do fairly quickly? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I believe so, according to [3] and [4] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] https://ci.ursalabs.org/ <https://ci.ursalabs.org/#/> >>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/ursa-labs/ursabot >>>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>>> >> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration >>>>>>>> [4] >>>>>>>> >> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-on-travis-ci-com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:01 AM Chesnay Schepler >>>>>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch to >> an >>>>>>>> entirely different CI service? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our >>>>>>>> project, then >>>>>>>> this might be something we can do fairly quickly? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 03/07/2019 05:55, Bowen Li wrote: >>>>>>>> > I responded in the INFRA ticket [1] that I believe they are >>>>>>>> using a wrong >>>>>>>> > metric against Flink and the total build time is a completely >>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>> > thing than guaranteed build capacity. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > My response: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > "As mentioned above, since I started to pay attention to >> Flink's >>>>>>>> build >>>>>>>> > queue a few tens of days ago, I'm in Seattle and I saw no >> build >>>>>>>> was kicking >>>>>>>> > off in PST daytime in weekdays for Flink. Our teammates in >> China >>>>>>>> and Europe >>>>>>>> > have also reported similar observations. So we need to >> evaluate >>>>>>>> how the >>>>>>>> > large total build time came from - if 1) your number and 2) >> our >>>>>>>> > observations from three locations that cover pretty much a >> full >>>>>>>> day, are >>>>>>>> > all true, I **guess** one reason can be that - highly likely >> the >>>>>>>> extra >>>>>>>> > build time came from weekends when other Apache projects may >> be >>>>>>>> idle and >>>>>>>> > Flink just drains hard its congested queue. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack >> of >>>>>>>> resources >>>>>>>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, >>>>>>>> dedicated** >>>>>>>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even >> if >>>>>>>> no build is >>>>>>>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head >>>>>>>> in PST >>>>>>>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an >> absurd >>>>>>>> amount of >>>>>>>> > waiting time. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system >> and >>>>>>>> grants >>>>>>>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for >>>>>>>> Flink, that'll >>>>>>>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the lack >> of >>>>>>>> resources >>>>>>>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, >>>>>>>> dedicated** >>>>>>>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently even >> if >>>>>>>> no build is >>>>>>>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue head >>>>>>>> in PST >>>>>>>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an >> absurd >>>>>>>> amount of >>>>>>>> > waiting time. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota system >> and >>>>>>>> grants >>>>>>>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only for >>>>>>>> Flink, that'll >>>>>>>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > I feel what's missing in the ASF INFRA's Travis resource >> pool is >>>>>>>> some level >>>>>>>> > of build capacity SLAs and certainty" >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Again, I believe there are differences in nature of these two >>>>>>>> problems, >>>>>>>> > long build time v.s. lack of dedicated build resource. That's >>>>>>>> saying, >>>>>>>> > shortening build time may relieve the situation, and may not. >>>>>>>> I'm sightly >>>>>>>> > negative on disabling IT cases for PRs, due to the downside >> is >>>>>>>> that we are >>>>>>>> > at risk of any potential bugs in PR that UTs doesn't catch, >> and >>>>>>>> may cost a >>>>>>>> > lot more to fix and if it slows others down or even block >>>>>>>> others, but am >>>>>>>> > open to others opinions on it. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > AFAICT from INFRA ticket[1], donating to ASF INFRA won't be >>>>>>>> feasible to >>>>>>>> > solve our problem since INFRA's pool is fully shared and they >>>>>>>> have no >>>>>>>> > control and finer insights over resource allocation to a >>>>>>>> specific Apache >>>>>>>> > project. As mentioned in [1], Apache Arrow is moving away >> from >>>>>>>> ASF INFRA >>>>>>>> > Travis pool (they are actually surprised Flink hasn't plan >> to do >>>>>>>> so). I >>>>>>>> > know that Spark is on its own build infra. If we all agree >> that >>>>>>>> funding our >>>>>>>> > own build infra, I'd be glad to help investigate any >> potential >>>>>>>> options >>>>>>>> > after releasing 1.9 since I'm super busy with 1.9 now. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:46 AM Chesnay Schepler >>>>>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >> As a short-term stopgap, since we can assume this issue to >>>>>>>> become much >>>>>>>> >> worse in the following days/weeks, we could disable IT >> cases in >>>>>>>> PRs and >>>>>>>> >> only run them on master. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> On 02/07/2019 12:03, Chesnay Schepler wrote: >>>>>>>> >>> People really have to stop thinking that just because >>>>>>>> something works >>>>>>>> >>> for us it is also a good solution. >>>>>>>> >>> Also, please remember that our builds run for 2h from >> start to >>>>>>>> finish, >>>>>>>> >>> and not the 14 _minutes_ it takes for zeppelin. >>>>>>>> >>> We are dealing with an entirely different scale here, both >> in >>>>>>>> terms of >>>>>>>> >>> build times and number of builds. >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> In this very thread people have been complaining about long >>>>>>>> queue >>>>>>>> >>> times for their builds. Surprise, other Apache projects >>>>>>>> have been >>>>>>>> >>> suffering the very same thing due to us not controlling our >>>>>>>> build >>>>>>>> >>> times. While switching services (be it Jenkins, CircleCI or >>>>>>>> whatever) >>>>>>>> >>> will possibly work for us (and these options are actually >>>>>>>> attractive, >>>>>>>> >>> like CircleCI's proper support for build artifacts), it >>>>>>>> will also >>>>>>>> >>> result in us likely negatively affecting other projects in >>>>>>>> significant >>>>>>>> >>> ways. >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> Sure, the Jenkins setup has a good user experience for us, >> at >>>>>>>> the cost >>>>>>>> >>> of blocking Jenkins workers for a _lot_ of time. Right now >> we >>>>>>>> have 25 >>>>>>>> >>> PR's in our queue; that's possibly 50h we'd consume of >> Jenkins >>>>>>>> >>> resources, and the European contributors haven't even >> really >>>>>>>> started yet. >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> FYI, the latest INFRA response from INFRA-18533: >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> "Our rough metrics shows that Flink used over 5800 hours of >>>>>>>> build time >>>>>>>> >>> last month. That is equal to EIGHT servers running 24/7 for >>>>>>>> the ENTIRE >>>>>>>> >>> MONTH. EIGHT. nonstop. >>>>>>>> >>> When we discovered this last night, we discussed it some >> and >>>>>>>> are going >>>>>>>> >>> to tune down Flink to allow only five executors maximum. We >>>>>>>> cannot >>>>>>>> >>> allow Flink to consume so much of a Foundation shared >>>>>>>> resource." >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> So yes, we either >>>>>>>> >>> a) have to heavily reduce our CI usage or >>>>>>>> >>> b) fund our own, either maintaining it ourselves or >> donating >>>>>>>> to Apache. >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> On 02/07/2019 05:11, Bowen Li wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> By looking at the git history of the Jenkins script, its >> core >>>>>>>> part >>>>>>>> >>>> was finished in March 2017 (and only two minor update in >>>>>>>> 2017/2018), >>>>>>>> >>>> so it's been running for over two years now and feels like >>>>>>>> Zepplin >>>>>>>> >>>> community has been quite happy with it. @Jeff Zhang >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> can >> you >>>>>>>> share your insights and user >>>>>>>> >>>> experience with the Jenkins+Travis approach? >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> Things like: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> - has the approach completely solved the resource capacity >>>>>>>> problem >>>>>>>> >>>> for Zepplin community? is Zepplin community happy with the >>>>>>>> result? >>>>>>>> >>>> - is the whole configuration chain stable (e.g. uptime) >>>>>>>> enough? >>>>>>>> >>>> - how often do you need to maintain the Jenkins infra? how >>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>> >>>> people are usually involved in maintenance and bug-fixes? >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> The downside of this approach seems mostly to be on the >>>>>>>> maintenance >>>>>>>> >>>> to me - maintain the script and Jenkins infra. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> ** Having Our Own Travis-CI.com Account ** >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> Another alternative I've been thinking of is to have our >> own >>>>>>>> >>>> travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> < >> http://travis-ci.com> >>>>>>>> account with paid dedicated >>>>>>>> >>>> resources. Note travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> >>>>>>>> <http://travis-ci.org> is the free >>>>>>>> >>>> version and travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> >>>>>>>> <http://travis-ci.com> is the commercial >>>>>>>> >>>> version. We currently use a shared resource pool managed >> by >>>>>>>> ASK INFRA >>>>>>>> >>>> team on travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> >>>>>>>> <http://travis-ci.org>, but we have no control >>>>>>>> >>>> over it - we can't see how it's configured, how much >>>>>>>> resources are >>>>>>>> >>>> available, how resources are allocated among Apache >> projects, >>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>> >>>> The nice thing about having an account on travis-ci.com >>>>>>>> <http://travis-ci.com> >>>>>>>> >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> are: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> - relatively low cost with much better resource guarantee >>>>>>>> than what >>>>>>>> >>>> we currently have [1]: $249/month with 5 dedicated >>>>>>>> concurrency, >>>>>>>> >>>> $489/month with 10 concurrency >>>>>>>> >>>> - low maintenance work compared to using Jenkins >>>>>>>> >>>> - (potentially) no migration cost according to Travis's >>>>>>>> doc [2] >>>>>>>> >>>> (pending verification) >>>>>>>> >>>> - full control over the build capacity/configuration >>>>>>>> compared to >>>>>>>> >>>> using ASF INFRA's pool >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> I'd be surprised if we as such a vibrant community cannot >>>>>>>> find and >>>>>>>> >>>> fund $249*12=$2988 a year in exchange for a much better >>>>>>>> developer >>>>>>>> >>>> experience and much higher productivity. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> [1] https://travis-ci.com/plans >>>>>>>> >>>> [2] >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration >>>>>>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM Chesnay Schepler >>>>>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> So yes, the Jenkins job keeps pulling the state from >>>>>>>> Travis until it >>>>>>>> >>>> finishes. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> Note sure I'm comfortable with the idea of using >> Jenkins >>>>>>>> workers >>>>>>>> >>>> just to >>>>>>>> >>>> idle for a several hours. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> On 29/06/2019 14:56, Jeff Zhang wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> > Here's what zeppelin community did, we make a >> python >>>>>>>> script to >>>>>>>> >>>> check the >>>>>>>> >>>> > build status of pull request. >>>>>>>> >>>> > Here's script: >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/travis_check.py >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > And this is the script we used in Jenkins build >> job. >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > if [ -f "travis_check.py" ]; then >>>>>>>> >>>> > git log -n 1 >>>>>>>> >>>> > STATUS=$(curl -s $BUILD_URL | grep -e "GitHub >> pull >>>>>>>> >>>> request.*from.*" | sed >>>>>>>> >>>> > 's/.*GitHub pull request <a >>>>>>>> >>>> > >> href=\"\(https[^"]*\).*from[^"]*.\(https[^"]*\).*/\1 >>>>>>>> \2/g') >>>>>>>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(echo $STATUS | sed >> 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') >>>>>>>> >>>> > PR=$(echo $STATUS | awk '{print $1}' | sed >>>>>>>> >>>> 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') >>>>>>>> >>>> > #COMMIT=$(git log -n 1 | grep "^Merge:" | awk >>>>>>>> '{print $3}') >>>>>>>> >>>> > #if [ -z $COMMIT ]; then >>>>>>>> >>>> > # COMMIT=$(curl -s >>>>>>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR >>>>>>>> >>>> > | grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" >> | >>>>>>>> tr '\n' ' ' >>>>>>>> >>>> | sed >>>>>>>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = >> '\n' | >>>>>>>> grep -v >>>>>>>> >>>> "apache:" | >>>>>>>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') >>>>>>>> >>>> > #fi >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > # get commit hash from PR >>>>>>>> >>>> > COMMIT=$(curl -s >>>>>>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR | >>>>>>>> >>>> > grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e "\"sha\":" | >> tr >>>>>>>> '\n' ' ' >>>>>>>> >>>> | sed >>>>>>>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = >> '\n' | >>>>>>>> grep -v >>>>>>>> >>>> "apache:" | >>>>>>>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') >>>>>>>> >>>> > sleep 30 # sleep few moment to wait travis >> starts >>>>>>>> the build >>>>>>>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 >>>>>>>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || >>>>>>>> RET_CODE=$? >>>>>>>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # try with >> repository >>>>>>>> name when >>>>>>>> >>>> travis-ci is >>>>>>>> >>>> > not available in the account >>>>>>>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 >>>>>>>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(curl -s >>>>>>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR >>>>>>>> >>>> > | grep '"full_name":' | grep -v "apache/zeppelin" | >>>>>>>> sed >>>>>>>> >>>> > 's/.*[:][^"]*["]\([^/]*\).*/\1/g') >>>>>>>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} || >>>>>>>> RET_CODE=$? >>>>>>>> >>>> > fi >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # fail with can't >> find >>>>>>>> build >>>>>>>> >>>> information in >>>>>>>> >>>> > the travis >>>>>>>> >>>> > set +x >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo >>>>>>>> "-----------------------------------------------------" >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "Looks like travis-ci is not configured >> for >>>>>>>> your fork." >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "Please setup by swich on 'zeppelin' >>>>>>>> repository at >>>>>>>> >>>> > https://travis-ci.org/profile and travis-ci." >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "And then make sure 'Build branch >> updates' >>>>>>>> option is >>>>>>>> >>>> enabled in >>>>>>>> >>>> > the settings >>>>>>>> https://travis-ci.org/${AUTHOR}/zeppelin/settings >>>>>>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings> >>>>>>>> >>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings>." >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "" >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "To trigger CI after setup, you will need >>>>>>>> ammend your >>>>>>>> >>>> last commit >>>>>>>> >>>> > with" >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "git commit --amend" >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "git push your-remote HEAD --force" >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "" >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "See >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> http://zeppelin.apache.org/contribution/contributions.html#continuous-integration >>>>>>>> >>>> > ." >>>>>>>> >>>> > fi >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > exit $RET_CODE >>>>>>>> >>>> > else >>>>>>>> >>>> > set +x >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "travis_check.py does not exists" >>>>>>>> >>>> > exit 1 >>>>>>>> >>>> > fi >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto: >> [hidden email] >>>>>>>> 于2019年6月29日周六 下午3:17写道： >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> Does this imply that a Jenkins job is active as >> long >>>>>>>> as the >>>>>>>> >>>> Travis build >>>>>>>> >>>> >> runs? >>>>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> >>>> >> On 26/06/2019 21:28, Bowen Li wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> @Dawid, I think the "long test running" as I >>>>>>>> mentioned in the >>>>>>>> >>>> first >>>>>>>> >>>> >> email, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> also as you guys said, belongs to "a big effort >>>>>>>> which is much >>>>>>>> >>>> harder to >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> accomplish in a short period of time and may >> deserve >>>>>>>> its own >>>>>>>> >>>> separate >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> discussion". Thus I didn't include it in what we >> can >>>>>>>> do in a >>>>>>>> >>>> foreseeable >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> short term. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> Besides, I don't think that's the ultimate reason >>>>>>>> for lack of >>>>>>>> >>>> build >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> resources. Even if the build is shortened to >>>>>>>> something like >>>>>>>> >>>> 2h, the >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> problems of no build machine works about 6 or >> more >>>>>>>> hours in >>>>>>>> >>>> PST daytime >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> that I described will still happen, because no >>>>>>>> machine from >>>>>>>> >>>> ASF INFRA's >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> pool is allocated to Flink. As I have paid close >>>>>>>> attention to >>>>>>>> >>>> the build >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> queue in the past few weekdays, it's a pretty >> clear >>>>>>>> pattern now. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> **The ultimate root cause** for that is - we >> don't >>>>>>>> have any >>>>>>>> >>>> **dedicated** >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> build resources that we can stably rely on. I'm >>>>>>>> actually ok to >>>>>>>> >>>> wait for a >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> long time if there are build requests running, it >>>>>>>> means at >>>>>>>> >>>> least we are >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> making progress. But I'm not ok with no build >>>>>>>> resource. A >>>>>>>> >>>> better place I >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> think we should aim at in short term is to always >>>>>>>> have at >>>>>>>> >>>> least a central >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> pool (can be 3 or 5) of machines dedicated to >> build >>>>>>>> Flink at >>>>>>>> >>>> any time, or >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> maybe use users resources. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> @Chesnay @Robert I synced with Jeff offline that >>>>>>>> Zeppelin >>>>>>>> >>>> community is >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> using a Jenkins job to automatically build on >> users' >>>>>>>> travis >>>>>>>> >>>> account and >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> link the result back to github PR. I guess the >>>>>>>> Jenkins job >>>>>>>> >>>> would fetch >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> latest upstream master and build the PR against >> it. >>>>>>>> Jeff has >>>>>>>> >>>> filed >>>>>>>> >>>> >> tickets >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> to learn and get access to the Jenkins infra. >> It'll >>>>>>>> better to >>>>>>>> >>>> fully >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> understand it first before judging this approach. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> I also heard good things about CircleCI, and ASF >>>>>>>> INFRA seems >>>>>>>> >>>> to have a >>>>>>>> >>>> >> pool >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> of build capacity there too. Can be an >> alternative >>>>>>>> to consider. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:44 AM Dawid >> Wysakowicz < >>>>>>>> >>>> >> [hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry to jump in late, but I think Bowen missed >> the >>>>>>>> most >>>>>>>> >>>> important point >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> from Chesnay's previous message in the summary. >> The >>>>>>>> ultimate >>>>>>>> >>>> reason for >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> all the problems is that the tests take close >> to 2 >>>>>>>> hours to >>>>>>>> >>>> run already. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> I fully support this claim: "Unless people start >>>>>>>> caring about >>>>>>>> >>>> test times >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> before adding them, this issue cannot be solved" >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> This is also another reason why using user's >> Travis >>>>>>>> account >>>>>>>> >>>> won't help. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> Every few weeks we reach the user's time limit >> for >>>>>>>> a single >>>>>>>> >>>> profile. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> This makes the user's builds simply fail, until >> we >>>>>>>> either >>>>>>>> >>>> properly >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> decrease the time the tests take (which I am not >>>>>>>> sure we ever >>>>>>>> >>>> did) or >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> postpone the problem by splitting into more >>>>>>>> profiles. (Note >>>>>>>> >>>> that the ASF >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> Travis account has higher time limits) >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> Dawid >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> On 26/06/2019 09:36, Robert Metzger wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> Do we know if using "the best" available >> hardware >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> >>>> improve the >>>>>>>> >>>> >> build >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> times? >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> Imagine we would run the build on machines with >>>>>>>> plenty of >>>>>>>> >>>> main memory >>>>>>>> >>>> >> to >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> mount everything to ramdisk + the latest CPU >>>>>>>> architecture? >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> Throwing hardware at the problem could help >> reduce >>>>>>>> the time >>>>>>>> >>>> of an >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> individual build, and using our own >> infrastructure >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> >>>> remove our >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> dependency on Apache's Travis account (with the >>>>>>>> obvious >>>>>>>> >>>> downside of >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> having >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> to maintain the infrastructure) >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> We could use an open source travis >> alternative, to >>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>> >>>> similar >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> experience and make the migration easy. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:34 AM Chesnay >> Schepler >>>>>>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >From what I gathered, there's no special >>>>>>>> sauce that the >>>>>>>> >>>> Zeppelin >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> project uses which actually integrates a users >>>>>>>> Travis >>>>>>>> >>>> account into the >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> PR. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> They just disabled Travis for PRs. And that's >>>>>>>> kind of it. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Naturally we can do this (duh) and safe the >> ASF a >>>>>>>> fair >>>>>>>> >>>> amount of >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> resources, but there are downsides: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> The discoverability of the Travis check takes >> a >>>>>>>> nose-dive. >>>>>>>> >>>> Either we >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> require every contributor to always, an every >>>>>>>> commit, also >>>>>>>> >>>> post a >>>>>>>> >>>> >> Travis >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> build, or we have the reviewer sift through >> the >>>>>>>> >>>> contributors account >>>>>>>> >>>> >> to >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> find it. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> This is rather cumbersome. Additionally, it's >>>>>>>> also not >>>>>>>> >>>> equivalent to >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> having a PR build. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> A normal branch build takes a branch as is and >>>>>>>> tests it. A >>>>>>>> >>>> PR build >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> merges the branch into master, and then runs >> it. >>>>>>>> (Fun fact: >>>>>>>> >>>> This is >>>>>>>> >>>> >> why >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> a PR without merge conflicts is not being run >> on >>>>>>>> Travis.) >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> And ultimately, everyone can already make use >>>>>>>> of this >>>>>>>> >>>> approach anyway. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> On 25/06/2019 08:02, Jark Wu wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jeff, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing the Zeppelin approach. I >>>>>>>> think it's a >>>>>>>> >>>> good idea to >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> leverage user's travis account. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> In this way, we can have almost unlimited >>>>>>>> concurrent build >>>>>>>> >>>> jobs and >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> developers can restart build by themselves >>>>>>>> (currently only >>>>>>>> >>>> committers >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> can restart PR's build). >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> But I'm still not very clear how to integrate >>>>>>>> user's >>>>>>>> >>>> travis build >>>>>>>> >>>> >> into >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> the Flink pull request's build automatically. >>>>>>>> Can you >>>>>>>> >>>> explain more in >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> detail? >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Another question: does travis only build >>>>>>>> branches for user >>>>>>>> >>>> account? >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> My concern is that builds for PRs will rebase >>>>>>>> user's >>>>>>>> >>>> commits against >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> current master branch. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> This will help us to find problems before >>>>>>>> merge. Builds >>>>>>>> >>>> for branches >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> will lose the impact of new commits in >> master. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> How does Zeppelin solve this problem? >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again for sharing the idea. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jark >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:01, Jeff Zhang >>>>>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Folks, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Zeppelin meet this kind of issue before, we >>>>>>>> solve >>>>>>>> >>>> it by >>>>>>>> >>>> >> delegating >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> each >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> one's PR build to his travis account >>>>>>>> (Everyone can >>>>>>>> >>>> have 5 free >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> slot for >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis build). >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Apache account travis build is only >>>>>>>> triggered when >>>>>>>> >>>> PR is merged. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Kurt Young <[hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> 于2019年6月25日周二 上午10:16写道： >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > (Forgot to cc George) >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Best, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Kurt >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kurt >> Young >>>>>>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Hi Bowen, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Thanks for bringing this up. We >>>>>>>> actually have >>>>>>>> >>>> discussed >>>>>>>> >>>> >> about >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> this, and I >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > think Till and George have >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > already spend sometime investigating >>>>>>>> it. I have >>>>>>>> >>>> cced both of >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> them, and >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > maybe they can share >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > their findings. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Best, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Kurt >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:08 AM Jark Wu >>>>>>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Hi Bowen, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Thanks for bringing this. We also >>>>>>>> suffered from >>>>>>>> >>>> the long >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> build time. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I agree that we should focus on >>>>>>>> solving build >>>>>>>> >>>> capacity >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> problem in the >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> thread. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> My observation is there is only one >>>>>>>> build is >>>>>>>> >>>> running, all >>>>>>>> >>>> >> the >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> others >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> (other >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> PRs, master) are pending. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> The pricing plan[1] of travis shows >>>>>>>> it can >>>>>>>> >>>> support >>>>>>>> >>>> >> concurrent >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> build >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > jobs. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> But I don't know which plan we are >>>>>>>> using, might >>>>>>>> >>>> be the free >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan for >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > open >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> source. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I cc-ed Chesnay who may have some >>>>>>>> experience on >>>>>>>> >>>> Travis. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Jark >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> [1]: https://travis-ci.com/plans >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 08:11, Bowen Li >> < >>>>>>>> >>>> >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > Hi Steven, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > I think you may not read what I >>>>>>>> wrote. The >>>>>>>> >>>> discussion is >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> about >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > "unstable >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > build **capacity**", in another word >>>>>>>> >>>> "unstable / lack of >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> build >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> resources", >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > not "unstable build". >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:40 PM >>>>>>>> Steven Wu >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > long and sometimes unstable build >> is >>>>>>>> >>>> definitely a pain >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> point. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > I suspect the build failure here in >>>>>>>> >>>> >> flink-connector-kafka >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> is not >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> related >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > to >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > my change. but there is no easy >>>>>>>> re-run the >>>>>>>> >>>> build on >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis UI. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > search showed a trick of >>>>>>>> close-and-open the >>>>>>>> >>>> PR will >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> trigger rebuild. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> but >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that could add noises to the PR >>>>>>>> activities. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/545555519 >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > travis-ci for my personal repo >>>>>>>> often failed >>>>>>>> >>>> with >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> exceeding time >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > limit >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > after >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 4+ hours. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > The job exceeded the maximum time >>>>>>>> limit for >>>>>>>> >>>> jobs, and >>>>>>>> >>>> >> has >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> been >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > terminated. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:15 PM >>>>>>>> Bowen Li >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto: >> [hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/549681530 >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> This build >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > request >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > has >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > been sitting at **HEAD of the >>>>>>>> queue** >>>>>>>> >>>> since I first >>>>>>>> >>>> >> saw >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> it at PST >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 10:30am >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > (not sure how long it's been >>>>>>>> there before >>>>>>>> >>>> 10:30am). >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> It's PST >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > 4:12pm >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> now >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > and >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > it hasn't started yet. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:48 PM >>>>>>>> Bowen Li >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto: >> [hidden email] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > Hi devs, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I've been experiencing the pain >>>>>>>> >>>> resulting from lack >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> of stable >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> build >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > capacity on Travis for Flink >>>>>>>> PRs [1]. >>>>>>>> >>>> >> Specifically, I >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> noticed >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> often >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > no >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build in the queue is making >> any >>>>>>>> >>>> progress for >>>>>>>> >>>> >> hours, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> and >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > suddenly >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> 5 >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > or >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 6 >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > builds kick off all together >>>>>>>> after the >>>>>>>> >>>> long pause. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> I'm at PST >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > (UTC-08) >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > time >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > zone, and I've seen pause can >>>>>>>> be as >>>>>>>> >>>> long as 6 hours >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> from PST 9am >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> to >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 3pm >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > (let alone the time needed to >>>>>>>> drain the >>>>>>>> >>>> queue >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> afterwards). >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I think this has greatly >>>>>>>> impacted our >>>>>>>> >>>> productivity. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> I've >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> experienced >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > PRs submitted in the early >>>>>>>> morning of >>>>>>>> >>>> PST time zone >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> won't finish >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > their >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build until late night of the >>>>>>>> same day. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > So my questions are: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - Has anyone else experienced >>>>>>>> the same >>>>>>>> >>>> problem or >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> have similar >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > observation >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > on TravisCI? (I suspect it >>>>>>>> has things >>>>>>>> >>>> to do with >>>>>>>> >>>> >> time >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> zone) >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - What pricing plan of >>>>>>>> TravisCI is >>>>>>>> >>>> Flink currently >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> using? Is it >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> the >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > free >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > plan for open source >>>>>>>> projects? What >>>>>>>> >>>> are the >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> guaranteed build >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> capacity >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > of >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > the current plan? >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - If the current pricing plan >>>>>>>> (either >>>>>>>> >>>> free or paid) >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> can't >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > provide >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > stable >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build capacity, can we >>>>>>>> upgrade to a >>>>>>>> >>>> higher priced >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan with >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > larger >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > and >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > more >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > stable build capacity? >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > BTW, another factor that >>>>>>>> contribute to >>>>>>>> >>>> the >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> productivity problem >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > is >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > that >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > our build is slow - we run >>>>>>>> full build >>>>>>>> >>>> for every PR >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> and a >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> successful >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > full >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build takes ~5h. We >>>>>>>> definitely have >>>>>>>> >>>> more options to >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> solve it, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > for >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > instance, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > modularize the build graphs >>>>>>>> and reuse >>>>>>>> >>>> artifacts >>>>>>>> >>>> >> from >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> the >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > previous >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > build. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > But I think that can be a big >>>>>>>> effort >>>>>>>> >>>> which is much >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> harder to >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > accomplish >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > in >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > a short period of time and >>>>>>>> may deserve >>>>>>>> >>>> its own >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> separate >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> discussion. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > [1] >>>>>>>> >>>> >> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/pull_requests >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jeff Zhang >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> |
|
|
Wow. That's great! Thanks Chesnay.
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 17:50, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote: > I'm currently modifying the cibot to do this automatically; should be > finished until Monday. > > On 02/08/2019 07:41, Jark Wu wrote: > > Hi Chesnay, > > > > Can we assign Flink Committers the permission of flink-ci/flink repo? > > Several times, when I pushed some new commits, the old build jobs are > still > > in pending and not canceled. > > Before we fix that, we can manually cancel some old jobs to save build > > resource. > > > > Best, > > Jark > > > > > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 16:17, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > >> Your best bet would be to check the first commit in the PR and check the > >> parent commit. > >> > >> To re-run things, you will have to rebase the PR on the latest master. > >> > >> On 10/07/2019 03:32, Kurt Young wrote: > >>> Thanks for all your efforts Chesnay, it indeed improves a lot for our > >>> develop experience. BTW, do you know how to find the master branch > >>> information which the CI runs with? > >>> > >>> For example, like this one: > >>> https://travis-ci.com/flink-ci/flink/jobs/214542568 > >>> It shows pass with the commits, which rebased on the master when the CI > >>> is triggered. But it's both possible that the master branch CI runs on > is > >>> the > >>> same or different with current master. If it's the same, I can simply > >> rely > >>> on the > >>> passed information to push commits, but if it's not, I think i should > >> find > >>> another > >>> way to re-trigger tests based on the newest master. > >>> > >>> Do you know where can I get such information? > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Kurt > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 3:27 AM Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> > >> wrote: > >>>> The kinks have been worked out; the bot is running again and pr builds > >>>> are yet again no longer running on ASF resources. > >>>> > >>>> PRs are mirrored to: https://github.com/flink-ci/flink > >>>> Bot source: https://github.com/flink-ci/ci-bot > >>>> > >>>> On 08/07/2019 17:14, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > >>>>> I have temporarily re-enabled running PR builds on the ASF account; > >>>>> migrating to the Travis subscription caused some issues in the bot > >>>>> that I have to fix first. > >>>>> > >>>>> On 07/07/2019 23:01, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > >>>>>> The vote has passed unanimously in favor of migrating to a separate > >>>>>> Travis account. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I will now set things up such that no PullRequest is no longer run > on > >>>>>> the ASF servers. > >>>>>> This is a major setup in reducing our usage of ASF resources. > >>>>>> For the time being we'll use free Travis plan for flink-ci (i.e. 5 > >>>>>> workers, which is the same the ASF gives us). Over the course of the > >>>>>> next week we'll setup the Ververica subscription to increase this > >> limit. > >>>>>> From now now, a bot will mirror all new and updated PullRequests > to a > >>>>>> mirror repository (https://github.com/flink-ci/flink-ci) and write > an > >>>>>> update into the PR once the build is complete. > >>>>>> I have ran the bots for the past 3 days in parallel to our existing > >>>>>> Travis and it was working without major issues. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The biggest change that contributors will see is that there's no > >>>>>> longer a icon next to each commit. We may revisit this in the > future. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'll setup a repo with the source of the bot later. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 04/07/2019 10:46, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > >>>>>>> I've raised a JIRA > >>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18703>with INFRA to > >>>>>>> inquire whether it would be possible to switch to a different > Travis > >>>>>>> account, and if so what steps would need to be taken. > >>>>>>> We need a proper confirmation from INFRA since we are not in full > >>>>>>> control of the flink repository (for example, we cannot access the > >>>>>>> settings page). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If this is indeed possible, Ververica is willing sponsor a Travis > >>>>>>> account for the Flink project. > >>>>>>> This would provide us with more than enough resources than we need. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Since this makes the project more reliant on resources provided by > >>>>>>> external companies I would like to vote on this. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please vote on this proposal, as follows: > >>>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis > >>>>>>> account, provided that INFRA approves > >>>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approach the migration to a Ververica-sponsored > >>>>>>> Travis account > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 24h, and until we have > >>>>>>> confirmation from INFRA. The voting period may be shorter than the > >>>>>>> usual 3 days since our current is effectively not working. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 04/07/2019 06:51, Bowen Li wrote: > >>>>>>>> Re: > Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch > to > >>>>>>>> an entirely different CI service? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I reached out to Wes and Krisztián from Apache Arrow PMC. They are > >>>>>>>> currently moving away from ASF's Travis to their own in-house > metal > >>>>>>>> machines at [1] with custom CI application at [2]. They've seen > >>>>>>>> significant improvement w.r.t both much higher performance and > >>>>>>>> basically no resource waiting time, "night-and-day" difference > >>>>>>>> quoting Wes. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Re: > If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our > >>>>>>>> project, then this might be something we can do fairly quickly? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I believe so, according to [3] and [4] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [1] https://ci.ursalabs.org/ <https://ci.ursalabs.org/#/> > >>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/ursa-labs/ursabot > >>>>>>>> [3] > >>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration > >>>>>>>> [4] > >>>>>>>> > >> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-on-travis-ci-com > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:01 AM Chesnay Schepler > >>>>>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the switch > to > >> an > >>>>>>>> entirely different CI service? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just for our > >>>>>>>> project, then > >>>>>>>> this might be something we can do fairly quickly? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 03/07/2019 05:55, Bowen Li wrote: > >>>>>>>> > I responded in the INFRA ticket [1] that I believe they > are > >>>>>>>> using a wrong > >>>>>>>> > metric against Flink and the total build time is a > completely > >>>>>>>> different > >>>>>>>> > thing than guaranteed build capacity. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > My response: > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > "As mentioned above, since I started to pay attention to > >> Flink's > >>>>>>>> build > >>>>>>>> > queue a few tens of days ago, I'm in Seattle and I saw no > >> build > >>>>>>>> was kicking > >>>>>>>> > off in PST daytime in weekdays for Flink. Our teammates in > >> China > >>>>>>>> and Europe > >>>>>>>> > have also reported similar observations. So we need to > >> evaluate > >>>>>>>> how the > >>>>>>>> > large total build time came from - if 1) your number and > 2) > >> our > >>>>>>>> > observations from three locations that cover pretty much a > >> full > >>>>>>>> day, are > >>>>>>>> > all true, I **guess** one reason can be that - highly > likely > >> the > >>>>>>>> extra > >>>>>>>> > build time came from weekends when other Apache projects > may > >> be > >>>>>>>> idle and > >>>>>>>> > Flink just drains hard its congested queue. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the > lack > >> of > >>>>>>>> resources > >>>>>>>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, > >>>>>>>> dedicated** > >>>>>>>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently > even > >> if > >>>>>>>> no build is > >>>>>>>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue > head > >>>>>>>> in PST > >>>>>>>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an > >> absurd > >>>>>>>> amount of > >>>>>>>> > waiting time. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota > system > >> and > >>>>>>>> grants > >>>>>>>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only > for > >>>>>>>> Flink, that'll > >>>>>>>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining about the > lack > >> of > >>>>>>>> resources > >>>>>>>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of **stable, > >>>>>>>> dedicated** > >>>>>>>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, currently > even > >> if > >>>>>>>> no build is > >>>>>>>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the queue > head > >>>>>>>> in PST > >>>>>>>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That is an > >> absurd > >>>>>>>> amount of > >>>>>>>> > waiting time. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a quota > system > >> and > >>>>>>>> grants > >>>>>>>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the time only > for > >>>>>>>> Flink, that'll > >>>>>>>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > I feel what's missing in the ASF INFRA's Travis resource > >> pool is > >>>>>>>> some level > >>>>>>>> > of build capacity SLAs and certainty" > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > Again, I believe there are differences in nature of these > two > >>>>>>>> problems, > >>>>>>>> > long build time v.s. lack of dedicated build resource. > That's > >>>>>>>> saying, > >>>>>>>> > shortening build time may relieve the situation, and may > not. > >>>>>>>> I'm sightly > >>>>>>>> > negative on disabling IT cases for PRs, due to the > downside > >> is > >>>>>>>> that we are > >>>>>>>> > at risk of any potential bugs in PR that UTs doesn't > catch, > >> and > >>>>>>>> may cost a > >>>>>>>> > lot more to fix and if it slows others down or even block > >>>>>>>> others, but am > >>>>>>>> > open to others opinions on it. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > AFAICT from INFRA ticket[1], donating to ASF INFRA won't > be > >>>>>>>> feasible to > >>>>>>>> > solve our problem since INFRA's pool is fully shared and > they > >>>>>>>> have no > >>>>>>>> > control and finer insights over resource allocation to a > >>>>>>>> specific Apache > >>>>>>>> > project. As mentioned in [1], Apache Arrow is moving away > >> from > >>>>>>>> ASF INFRA > >>>>>>>> > Travis pool (they are actually surprised Flink hasn't plan > >> to do > >>>>>>>> so). I > >>>>>>>> > know that Spark is on its own build infra. If we all agree > >> that > >>>>>>>> funding our > >>>>>>>> > own build infra, I'd be glad to help investigate any > >> potential > >>>>>>>> options > >>>>>>>> > after releasing 1.9 since I'm super busy with 1.9 now. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:46 AM Chesnay Schepler > >>>>>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> >> As a short-term stopgap, since we can assume this issue > to > >>>>>>>> become much > >>>>>>>> >> worse in the following days/weeks, we could disable IT > >> cases in > >>>>>>>> PRs and > >>>>>>>> >> only run them on master. > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> On 02/07/2019 12:03, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>> People really have to stop thinking that just because > >>>>>>>> something works > >>>>>>>> >>> for us it is also a good solution. > >>>>>>>> >>> Also, please remember that our builds run for 2h from > >> start to > >>>>>>>> finish, > >>>>>>>> >>> and not the 14 _minutes_ it takes for zeppelin. > >>>>>>>> >>> We are dealing with an entirely different scale here, > both > >> in > >>>>>>>> terms of > >>>>>>>> >>> build times and number of builds. > >>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>> In this very thread people have been complaining about > long > >>>>>>>> queue > >>>>>>>> >>> times for their builds. Surprise, other Apache projects > >>>>>>>> have been > >>>>>>>> >>> suffering the very same thing due to us not controlling > our > >>>>>>>> build > >>>>>>>> >>> times. While switching services (be it Jenkins, > CircleCI or > >>>>>>>> whatever) > >>>>>>>> >>> will possibly work for us (and these options are > actually > >>>>>>>> attractive, > >>>>>>>> >>> like CircleCI's proper support for build artifacts), it > >>>>>>>> will also > >>>>>>>> >>> result in us likely negatively affecting other projects > in > >>>>>>>> significant > >>>>>>>> >>> ways. > >>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>> Sure, the Jenkins setup has a good user experience for > us, > >> at > >>>>>>>> the cost > >>>>>>>> >>> of blocking Jenkins workers for a _lot_ of time. Right > now > >> we > >>>>>>>> have 25 > >>>>>>>> >>> PR's in our queue; that's possibly 50h we'd consume of > >> Jenkins > >>>>>>>> >>> resources, and the European contributors haven't even > >> really > >>>>>>>> started yet. > >>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>> FYI, the latest INFRA response from INFRA-18533: > >>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>> "Our rough metrics shows that Flink used over 5800 > hours of > >>>>>>>> build time > >>>>>>>> >>> last month. That is equal to EIGHT servers running 24/7 > for > >>>>>>>> the ENTIRE > >>>>>>>> >>> MONTH. EIGHT. nonstop. > >>>>>>>> >>> When we discovered this last night, we discussed it some > >> and > >>>>>>>> are going > >>>>>>>> >>> to tune down Flink to allow only five executors > maximum. We > >>>>>>>> cannot > >>>>>>>> >>> allow Flink to consume so much of a Foundation shared > >>>>>>>> resource." > >>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>> So yes, we either > >>>>>>>> >>> a) have to heavily reduce our CI usage or > >>>>>>>> >>> b) fund our own, either maintaining it ourselves or > >> donating > >>>>>>>> to Apache. > >>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>> On 02/07/2019 05:11, Bowen Li wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> By looking at the git history of the Jenkins script, > its > >> core > >>>>>>>> part > >>>>>>>> >>>> was finished in March 2017 (and only two minor update > in > >>>>>>>> 2017/2018), > >>>>>>>> >>>> so it's been running for over two years now and feels > like > >>>>>>>> Zepplin > >>>>>>>> >>>> community has been quite happy with it. @Jeff Zhang > >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > can > >> you > >>>>>>>> share your insights and user > >>>>>>>> >>>> experience with the Jenkins+Travis approach? > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> Things like: > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> - has the approach completely solved the resource > capacity > >>>>>>>> problem > >>>>>>>> >>>> for Zepplin community? is Zepplin community happy with > the > >>>>>>>> result? > >>>>>>>> >>>> - is the whole configuration chain stable (e.g. uptime) > >>>>>>>> enough? > >>>>>>>> >>>> - how often do you need to maintain the Jenkins infra? > how > >>>>>>>> many > >>>>>>>> >>>> people are usually involved in maintenance and > bug-fixes? > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> The downside of this approach seems mostly to be on the > >>>>>>>> maintenance > >>>>>>>> >>>> to me - maintain the script and Jenkins infra. > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> ** Having Our Own Travis-CI.com Account ** > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> Another alternative I've been thinking of is to have > our > >> own > >>>>>>>> >>>> travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> < > >> http://travis-ci.com> > >>>>>>>> account with paid dedicated > >>>>>>>> >>>> resources. Note travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> > >>>>>>>> <http://travis-ci.org> is the free > >>>>>>>> >>>> version and travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> > >>>>>>>> <http://travis-ci.com> is the commercial > >>>>>>>> >>>> version. We currently use a shared resource pool > managed > >> by > >>>>>>>> ASK INFRA > >>>>>>>> >>>> team on travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> > >>>>>>>> <http://travis-ci.org>, but we have no control > >>>>>>>> >>>> over it - we can't see how it's configured, how much > >>>>>>>> resources are > >>>>>>>> >>>> available, how resources are allocated among Apache > >> projects, > >>>>>>>> etc. > >>>>>>>> >>>> The nice thing about having an account on > travis-ci.com > >>>>>>>> <http://travis-ci.com> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> are: > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> - relatively low cost with much better resource > guarantee > >>>>>>>> than what > >>>>>>>> >>>> we currently have [1]: $249/month with 5 dedicated > >>>>>>>> concurrency, > >>>>>>>> >>>> $489/month with 10 concurrency > >>>>>>>> >>>> - low maintenance work compared to using Jenkins > >>>>>>>> >>>> - (potentially) no migration cost according to Travis's > >>>>>>>> doc [2] > >>>>>>>> >>>> (pending verification) > >>>>>>>> >>>> - full control over the build capacity/configuration > >>>>>>>> compared to > >>>>>>>> >>>> using ASF INFRA's pool > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> I'd be surprised if we as such a vibrant community > cannot > >>>>>>>> find and > >>>>>>>> >>>> fund $249*12=$2988 a year in exchange for a much better > >>>>>>>> developer > >>>>>>>> >>>> experience and much higher productivity. > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> [1] https://travis-ci.com/plans > >>>>>>>> >>>> [2] > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration > >>>>>>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM Chesnay Schepler > >>>>>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email] > >>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> So yes, the Jenkins job keeps pulling the state > from > >>>>>>>> Travis until it > >>>>>>>> >>>> finishes. > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> Note sure I'm comfortable with the idea of using > >> Jenkins > >>>>>>>> workers > >>>>>>>> >>>> just to > >>>>>>>> >>>> idle for a several hours. > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> On 29/06/2019 14:56, Jeff Zhang wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> > Here's what zeppelin community did, we make a > >> python > >>>>>>>> script to > >>>>>>>> >>>> check the > >>>>>>>> >>>> > build status of pull request. > >>>>>>>> >>>> > Here's script: > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/travis_check.py > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> > And this is the script we used in Jenkins build > >> job. > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> > if [ -f "travis_check.py" ]; then > >>>>>>>> >>>> > git log -n 1 > >>>>>>>> >>>> > STATUS=$(curl -s $BUILD_URL | grep -e "GitHub > >> pull > >>>>>>>> >>>> request.*from.*" | sed > >>>>>>>> >>>> > 's/.*GitHub pull request <a > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > >> href=\"\(https[^"]*\).*from[^"]*.\(https[^"]*\).*/\1 > >>>>>>>> \2/g') > >>>>>>>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(echo $STATUS | sed > >> 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') > >>>>>>>> >>>> > PR=$(echo $STATUS | awk '{print $1}' | sed > >>>>>>>> >>>> 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') > >>>>>>>> >>>> > #COMMIT=$(git log -n 1 | grep "^Merge:" | awk > >>>>>>>> '{print $3}') > >>>>>>>> >>>> > #if [ -z $COMMIT ]; then > >>>>>>>> >>>> > # COMMIT=$(curl -s > >>>>>>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR > >>>>>>>> >>>> > | grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e > "\"sha\":" > >> | > >>>>>>>> tr '\n' ' ' > >>>>>>>> >>>> | sed > >>>>>>>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = > >> '\n' | > >>>>>>>> grep -v > >>>>>>>> >>>> "apache:" | > >>>>>>>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') > >>>>>>>> >>>> > #fi > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> > # get commit hash from PR > >>>>>>>> >>>> > COMMIT=$(curl -s > >>>>>>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR > | > >>>>>>>> >>>> > grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e > "\"sha\":" | > >> tr > >>>>>>>> '\n' ' ' > >>>>>>>> >>>> | sed > >>>>>>>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = > >> '\n' | > >>>>>>>> grep -v > >>>>>>>> >>>> "apache:" | > >>>>>>>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') > >>>>>>>> >>>> > sleep 30 # sleep few moment to wait travis > >> starts > >>>>>>>> the build > >>>>>>>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 > >>>>>>>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} > || > >>>>>>>> RET_CODE=$? > >>>>>>>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # try with > >> repository > >>>>>>>> name when > >>>>>>>> >>>> travis-ci is > >>>>>>>> >>>> > not available in the account > >>>>>>>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 > >>>>>>>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(curl -s > >>>>>>>> >>>> https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR > >>>>>>>> >>>> > | grep '"full_name":' | grep -v > "apache/zeppelin" | > >>>>>>>> sed > >>>>>>>> >>>> > 's/.*[:][^"]*["]\([^/]*\).*/\1/g') > >>>>>>>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} ${COMMIT} > || > >>>>>>>> RET_CODE=$? > >>>>>>>> >>>> > fi > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # fail with > can't > >> find > >>>>>>>> build > >>>>>>>> >>>> information in > >>>>>>>> >>>> > the travis > >>>>>>>> >>>> > set +x > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo > >>>>>>>> "-----------------------------------------------------" > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "Looks like travis-ci is not > configured > >> for > >>>>>>>> your fork." > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "Please setup by swich on 'zeppelin' > >>>>>>>> repository at > >>>>>>>> >>>> > https://travis-ci.org/profile and travis-ci." > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "And then make sure 'Build branch > >> updates' > >>>>>>>> option is > >>>>>>>> >>>> enabled in > >>>>>>>> >>>> > the settings > >>>>>>>> https://travis-ci.org/${AUTHOR}/zeppelin/settings > >>>>>>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings > >." > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "" > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "To trigger CI after setup, you will > need > >>>>>>>> ammend your > >>>>>>>> >>>> last commit > >>>>>>>> >>>> > with" > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "git commit --amend" > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "git push your-remote HEAD --force" > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "" > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "See > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > http://zeppelin.apache.org/contribution/contributions.html#continuous-integration > >>>>>>>> >>>> > ." > >>>>>>>> >>>> > fi > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> > exit $RET_CODE > >>>>>>>> >>>> > else > >>>>>>>> >>>> > set +x > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "travis_check.py does not exists" > >>>>>>>> >>>> > exit 1 > >>>>>>>> >>>> > fi > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> > Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto: > >> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>> 于2019年6月29日周六 下午3:17写道： > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> Does this imply that a Jenkins job is active as > >> long > >>>>>>>> as the > >>>>>>>> >>>> Travis build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> runs? > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> On 26/06/2019 21:28, Bowen Li wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> Hi, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> @Dawid, I think the "long test running" as I > >>>>>>>> mentioned in the > >>>>>>>> >>>> first > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> email, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> also as you guys said, belongs to "a big > effort > >>>>>>>> which is much > >>>>>>>> >>>> harder to > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> accomplish in a short period of time and may > >> deserve > >>>>>>>> its own > >>>>>>>> >>>> separate > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> discussion". Thus I didn't include it in what > we > >> can > >>>>>>>> do in a > >>>>>>>> >>>> foreseeable > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> short term. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> Besides, I don't think that's the ultimate > reason > >>>>>>>> for lack of > >>>>>>>> >>>> build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> resources. Even if the build is shortened to > >>>>>>>> something like > >>>>>>>> >>>> 2h, the > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> problems of no build machine works about 6 or > >> more > >>>>>>>> hours in > >>>>>>>> >>>> PST daytime > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> that I described will still happen, because no > >>>>>>>> machine from > >>>>>>>> >>>> ASF INFRA's > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> pool is allocated to Flink. As I have paid > close > >>>>>>>> attention to > >>>>>>>> >>>> the build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> queue in the past few weekdays, it's a pretty > >> clear > >>>>>>>> pattern now. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> **The ultimate root cause** for that is - we > >> don't > >>>>>>>> have any > >>>>>>>> >>>> **dedicated** > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> build resources that we can stably rely on. > I'm > >>>>>>>> actually ok to > >>>>>>>> >>>> wait for a > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> long time if there are build requests > running, it > >>>>>>>> means at > >>>>>>>> >>>> least we are > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> making progress. But I'm not ok with no build > >>>>>>>> resource. A > >>>>>>>> >>>> better place I > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> think we should aim at in short term is to > always > >>>>>>>> have at > >>>>>>>> >>>> least a central > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> pool (can be 3 or 5) of machines dedicated to > >> build > >>>>>>>> Flink at > >>>>>>>> >>>> any time, or > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> maybe use users resources. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> @Chesnay @Robert I synced with Jeff offline > that > >>>>>>>> Zeppelin > >>>>>>>> >>>> community is > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> using a Jenkins job to automatically build on > >> users' > >>>>>>>> travis > >>>>>>>> >>>> account and > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> link the result back to github PR. I guess the > >>>>>>>> Jenkins job > >>>>>>>> >>>> would fetch > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> latest upstream master and build the PR > against > >> it. > >>>>>>>> Jeff has > >>>>>>>> >>>> filed > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> tickets > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> to learn and get access to the Jenkins infra. > >> It'll > >>>>>>>> better to > >>>>>>>> >>>> fully > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> understand it first before judging this > approach. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> I also heard good things about CircleCI, and > ASF > >>>>>>>> INFRA seems > >>>>>>>> >>>> to have a > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> pool > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> of build capacity there too. Can be an > >> alternative > >>>>>>>> to consider. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:44 AM Dawid > >> Wysakowicz < > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto: > [hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry to jump in late, but I think Bowen > missed > >> the > >>>>>>>> most > >>>>>>>> >>>> important point > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> from Chesnay's previous message in the > summary. > >> The > >>>>>>>> ultimate > >>>>>>>> >>>> reason for > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> all the problems is that the tests take close > >> to 2 > >>>>>>>> hours to > >>>>>>>> >>>> run already. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> I fully support this claim: "Unless people > start > >>>>>>>> caring about > >>>>>>>> >>>> test times > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> before adding them, this issue cannot be > solved" > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> This is also another reason why using user's > >> Travis > >>>>>>>> account > >>>>>>>> >>>> won't help. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> Every few weeks we reach the user's time > limit > >> for > >>>>>>>> a single > >>>>>>>> >>>> profile. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> This makes the user's builds simply fail, > until > >> we > >>>>>>>> either > >>>>>>>> >>>> properly > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> decrease the time the tests take (which I am > not > >>>>>>>> sure we ever > >>>>>>>> >>>> did) or > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> postpone the problem by splitting into more > >>>>>>>> profiles. (Note > >>>>>>>> >>>> that the ASF > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> Travis account has higher time limits) > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> Best, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> Dawid > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> On 26/06/2019 09:36, Robert Metzger wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> Do we know if using "the best" available > >> hardware > >>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>> >>>> improve the > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> times? > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> Imagine we would run the build on machines > with > >>>>>>>> plenty of > >>>>>>>> >>>> main memory > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> to > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> mount everything to ramdisk + the latest CPU > >>>>>>>> architecture? > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> Throwing hardware at the problem could help > >> reduce > >>>>>>>> the time > >>>>>>>> >>>> of an > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> individual build, and using our own > >> infrastructure > >>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>> >>>> remove our > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> dependency on Apache's Travis account (with > the > >>>>>>>> obvious > >>>>>>>> >>>> downside of > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> having > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> to maintain the infrastructure) > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> We could use an open source travis > >> alternative, to > >>>>>>>> have a > >>>>>>>> >>>> similar > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> experience and make the migration easy. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:34 AM Chesnay > >> Schepler > >>>>>>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >From what I gathered, there's no special > >>>>>>>> sauce that the > >>>>>>>> >>>> Zeppelin > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> project uses which actually integrates a > users > >>>>>>>> Travis > >>>>>>>> >>>> account into the > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> PR. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> They just disabled Travis for PRs. And > that's > >>>>>>>> kind of it. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Naturally we can do this (duh) and safe the > >> ASF a > >>>>>>>> fair > >>>>>>>> >>>> amount of > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> resources, but there are downsides: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> The discoverability of the Travis check > takes > >> a > >>>>>>>> nose-dive. > >>>>>>>> >>>> Either we > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> require every contributor to always, an > every > >>>>>>>> commit, also > >>>>>>>> >>>> post a > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> Travis > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> build, or we have the reviewer sift through > >> the > >>>>>>>> >>>> contributors account > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> to > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> find it. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> This is rather cumbersome. Additionally, > it's > >>>>>>>> also not > >>>>>>>> >>>> equivalent to > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> having a PR build. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> A normal branch build takes a branch as is > and > >>>>>>>> tests it. A > >>>>>>>> >>>> PR build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> merges the branch into master, and then > runs > >> it. > >>>>>>>> (Fun fact: > >>>>>>>> >>>> This is > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> why > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> a PR without merge conflicts is not being > run > >> on > >>>>>>>> Travis.) > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> And ultimately, everyone can already make > use > >>>>>>>> of this > >>>>>>>> >>>> approach anyway. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> On 25/06/2019 08:02, Jark Wu wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jeff, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing the Zeppelin approach. > I > >>>>>>>> think it's a > >>>>>>>> >>>> good idea to > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> leverage user's travis account. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> In this way, we can have almost unlimited > >>>>>>>> concurrent build > >>>>>>>> >>>> jobs and > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> developers can restart build by themselves > >>>>>>>> (currently only > >>>>>>>> >>>> committers > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> can restart PR's build). > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> But I'm still not very clear how to > integrate > >>>>>>>> user's > >>>>>>>> >>>> travis build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> into > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> the Flink pull request's build > automatically. > >>>>>>>> Can you > >>>>>>>> >>>> explain more in > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> detail? > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Another question: does travis only build > >>>>>>>> branches for user > >>>>>>>> >>>> account? > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> My concern is that builds for PRs will > rebase > >>>>>>>> user's > >>>>>>>> >>>> commits against > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> current master branch. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> This will help us to find problems before > >>>>>>>> merge. Builds > >>>>>>>> >>>> for branches > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> will lose the impact of new commits in > >> master. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> How does Zeppelin solve this problem? > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again for sharing the idea. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jark > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:01, Jeff Zhang > >>>>>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email] > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Folks, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Zeppelin meet this kind of issue before, > we > >>>>>>>> solve > >>>>>>>> >>>> it by > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> delegating > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> each > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> one's PR build to his travis account > >>>>>>>> (Everyone can > >>>>>>>> >>>> have 5 free > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> slot for > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis build). > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Apache account travis build is only > >>>>>>>> triggered when > >>>>>>>> >>>> PR is merged. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Kurt Young <[hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email] > >> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> 于2019年6月25日周二 上午10:16写道： > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > (Forgot to cc George) > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Best, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Kurt > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kurt > >> Young > >>>>>>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Hi Bowen, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Thanks for bringing this up. We > >>>>>>>> actually have > >>>>>>>> >>>> discussed > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> about > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> this, and I > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > think Till and George have > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > already spend sometime investigating > >>>>>>>> it. I have > >>>>>>>> >>>> cced both of > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> them, and > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > maybe they can share > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > their findings. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Best, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Kurt > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:08 AM > Jark Wu > >>>>>>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Hi Bowen, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Thanks for bringing this. We also > >>>>>>>> suffered from > >>>>>>>> >>>> the long > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> build time. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I agree that we should focus on > >>>>>>>> solving build > >>>>>>>> >>>> capacity > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> problem in the > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> thread. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> My observation is there is only one > >>>>>>>> build is > >>>>>>>> >>>> running, all > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> the > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> others > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> (other > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> PRs, master) are pending. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> The pricing plan[1] of travis shows > >>>>>>>> it can > >>>>>>>> >>>> support > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> concurrent > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > jobs. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> But I don't know which plan we are > >>>>>>>> using, might > >>>>>>>> >>>> be the free > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan for > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > open > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> source. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I cc-ed Chesnay who may have some > >>>>>>>> experience on > >>>>>>>> >>>> Travis. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Regards, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Jark > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> [1]: https://travis-ci.com/plans > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 08:11, Bowen > Li > >> < > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> [hidden email] <mailto: > [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > Hi Steven, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > I think you may not read what I > >>>>>>>> wrote. The > >>>>>>>> >>>> discussion is > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> about > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > "unstable > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > build **capacity**", in another > word > >>>>>>>> >>>> "unstable / lack of > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> resources", > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > not "unstable build". > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:40 PM > >>>>>>>> Steven Wu > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > long and sometimes unstable > build > >> is > >>>>>>>> >>>> definitely a pain > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> point. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > I suspect the build failure > here in > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> flink-connector-kafka > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> is not > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> related > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > to > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > my change. but there is no easy > >>>>>>>> re-run the > >>>>>>>> >>>> build on > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis UI. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > search showed a trick of > >>>>>>>> close-and-open the > >>>>>>>> >>>> PR will > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> trigger rebuild. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> but > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that could add noises to the PR > >>>>>>>> activities. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/545555519 > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > travis-ci for my personal repo > >>>>>>>> often failed > >>>>>>>> >>>> with > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> exceeding time > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > limit > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > after > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 4+ hours. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > The job exceeded the maximum > time > >>>>>>>> limit for > >>>>>>>> >>>> jobs, and > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> has > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> been > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > terminated. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:15 PM > >>>>>>>> Bowen Li > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto: > >> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/549681530 > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> This build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > request > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > has > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > been sitting at **HEAD of the > >>>>>>>> queue** > >>>>>>>> >>>> since I first > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> saw > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> it at PST > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 10:30am > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > (not sure how long it's been > >>>>>>>> there before > >>>>>>>> >>>> 10:30am). > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> It's PST > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > 4:12pm > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> now > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > and > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > it hasn't started yet. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:48 > PM > >>>>>>>> Bowen Li > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto: > >> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > Hi devs, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I've been experiencing the > pain > >>>>>>>> >>>> resulting from lack > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> of stable > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > capacity on Travis for Flink > >>>>>>>> PRs [1]. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> Specifically, I > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> noticed > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> often > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > no > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build in the queue is making > >> any > >>>>>>>> >>>> progress for > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> hours, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> and > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > suddenly > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> 5 > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > or > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 6 > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > builds kick off all together > >>>>>>>> after the > >>>>>>>> >>>> long pause. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> I'm at PST > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > (UTC-08) > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > time > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > zone, and I've seen pause > can > >>>>>>>> be as > >>>>>>>> >>>> long as 6 hours > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> from PST 9am > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> to > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 3pm > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > (let alone the time needed > to > >>>>>>>> drain the > >>>>>>>> >>>> queue > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> afterwards). > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I think this has greatly > >>>>>>>> impacted our > >>>>>>>> >>>> productivity. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> I've > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> experienced > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > PRs submitted in the early > >>>>>>>> morning of > >>>>>>>> >>>> PST time zone > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> won't finish > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > their > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build until late night of > the > >>>>>>>> same day. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > So my questions are: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - Has anyone else > experienced > >>>>>>>> the same > >>>>>>>> >>>> problem or > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> have similar > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > observation > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > on TravisCI? (I suspect it > >>>>>>>> has things > >>>>>>>> >>>> to do with > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> time > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> zone) > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - What pricing plan of > >>>>>>>> TravisCI is > >>>>>>>> >>>> Flink currently > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> using? Is it > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> the > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > free > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > plan for open source > >>>>>>>> projects? What > >>>>>>>> >>>> are the > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> guaranteed build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> capacity > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > of > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > the current plan? > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - If the current pricing > plan > >>>>>>>> (either > >>>>>>>> >>>> free or paid) > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> can't > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > provide > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > stable > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build capacity, can we > >>>>>>>> upgrade to a > >>>>>>>> >>>> higher priced > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan with > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > larger > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > and > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > more > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > stable build capacity? > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > BTW, another factor that > >>>>>>>> contribute to > >>>>>>>> >>>> the > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> productivity problem > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > is > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > that > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > our build is slow - we run > >>>>>>>> full build > >>>>>>>> >>>> for every PR > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> and a > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> successful > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > full > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build takes ~5h. We > >>>>>>>> definitely have > >>>>>>>> >>>> more options to > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> solve it, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > for > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > instance, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > modularize the build graphs > >>>>>>>> and reuse > >>>>>>>> >>>> artifacts > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> from > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> the > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > previous > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > build. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > But I think that can be a > big > >>>>>>>> effort > >>>>>>>> >>>> which is much > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> harder to > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > accomplish > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > in > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > a short period of time and > >>>>>>>> may deserve > >>>>>>>> >>>> its own > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> separate > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> discussion. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > [1] > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> > https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/pull_requests > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jeff Zhang > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > > |
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Migrate to sponsored Travis account
|
|
Update: Implemented and deployed.
On 02/08/2019 12:11, Jark Wu wrote: > Wow. That's great! Thanks Chesnay. > > On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 17:50, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > I'm currently modifying the cibot to do this automatically; should be > finished until Monday. > > On 02/08/2019 07:41, Jark Wu wrote: > > Hi Chesnay, > > > > Can we assign Flink Committers the permission of flink-ci/flink > repo? > > Several times, when I pushed some new commits, the old build > jobs are still > > in pending and not canceled. > > Before we fix that, we can manually cancel some old jobs to save > build > > resource. > > > > Best, > > Jark > > > > > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 16:17, Chesnay Schepler > <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > > >> Your best bet would be to check the first commit in the PR and > check the > >> parent commit. > >> > >> To re-run things, you will have to rebase the PR on the latest > master. > >> > >> On 10/07/2019 03:32, Kurt Young wrote: > >>> Thanks for all your efforts Chesnay, it indeed improves a lot > for our > >>> develop experience. BTW, do you know how to find the master branch > >>> information which the CI runs with? > >>> > >>> For example, like this one: > >>> https://travis-ci.com/flink-ci/flink/jobs/214542568 > >>> It shows pass with the commits, which rebased on the master > when the CI > >>> is triggered. But it's both possible that the master branch CI > runs on is > >>> the > >>> same or different with current master. If it's the same, I can > simply > >> rely > >>> on the > >>> passed information to push commits, but if it's not, I think i > should > >> find > >>> another > >>> way to re-trigger tests based on the newest master. > >>> > >>> Do you know where can I get such information? > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Kurt > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 3:27 AM Chesnay Schepler > <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >> wrote: > >>>> The kinks have been worked out; the bot is running again and > pr builds > >>>> are yet again no longer running on ASF resources. > >>>> > >>>> PRs are mirrored to: https://github.com/flink-ci/flink > >>>> Bot source: https://github.com/flink-ci/ci-bot > >>>> > >>>> On 08/07/2019 17:14, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > >>>>> I have temporarily re-enabled running PR builds on the ASF > account; > >>>>> migrating to the Travis subscription caused some issues in > the bot > >>>>> that I have to fix first. > >>>>> > >>>>> On 07/07/2019 23:01, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > >>>>>> The vote has passed unanimously in favor of migrating to a > separate > >>>>>> Travis account. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I will now set things up such that no PullRequest is no > longer run on > >>>>>> the ASF servers. > >>>>>> This is a major setup in reducing our usage of ASF resources. > >>>>>> For the time being we'll use free Travis plan for flink-ci > (i.e. 5 > >>>>>> workers, which is the same the ASF gives us). Over the > course of the > >>>>>> next week we'll setup the Ververica subscription to > increase this > >> limit. > >>>>>> From now now, a bot will mirror all new and updated > PullRequests to a > >>>>>> mirror repository (https://github.com/flink-ci/flink-ci) > and write an > >>>>>> update into the PR once the build is complete. > >>>>>> I have ran the bots for the past 3 days in parallel to our > existing > >>>>>> Travis and it was working without major issues. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The biggest change that contributors will see is that > there's no > >>>>>> longer a icon next to each commit. We may revisit this in > the future. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'll setup a repo with the source of the bot later. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 04/07/2019 10:46, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > >>>>>>> I've raised a JIRA > >>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18703>with > INFRA to > >>>>>>> inquire whether it would be possible to switch to a > different Travis > >>>>>>> account, and if so what steps would need to be taken. > >>>>>>> We need a proper confirmation from INFRA since we are not > in full > >>>>>>> control of the flink repository (for example, we cannot > access the > >>>>>>> settings page). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If this is indeed possible, Ververica is willing sponsor a > Travis > >>>>>>> account for the Flink project. > >>>>>>> This would provide us with more than enough resources than > we need. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Since this makes the project more reliant on resources > provided by > >>>>>>> external companies I would like to vote on this. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please vote on this proposal, as follows: > >>>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the migration to a Ververica-sponsored Travis > >>>>>>> account, provided that INFRA approves > >>>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approach the migration to a Ververica-sponsored > >>>>>>> Travis account > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 24h, and until we have > >>>>>>> confirmation from INFRA. The voting period may be shorter > than the > >>>>>>> usual 3 days since our current is effectively not working. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 04/07/2019 06:51, Bowen Li wrote: > >>>>>>>> Re: > Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the > switch to > >>>>>>>> an entirely different CI service? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I reached out to Wes and Krisztián from Apache Arrow PMC. > They are > >>>>>>>> currently moving away from ASF's Travis to their own > in-house metal > >>>>>>>> machines at [1] with custom CI application at [2]. > They've seen > >>>>>>>> significant improvement w.r.t both much higher > performance and > >>>>>>>> basically no resource waiting time, "night-and-day" > difference > >>>>>>>> quoting Wes. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Re: > If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just > for our > >>>>>>>> project, then this might be something we can do fairly > quickly? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I believe so, according to [3] and [4] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [1] https://ci.ursalabs.org/ <https://ci.ursalabs.org/#/> > >>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/ursa-labs/ursabot > >>>>>>>> [3] > >>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration > >>>>>>>> [4] > >>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-on-travis-ci-com > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:01 AM Chesnay Schepler > >>>>>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Are they using their own Travis CI pool, or did the > switch to > >> an > >>>>>>>> entirely different CI service? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If we can just switch to our own Travis pool, just > for our > >>>>>>>> project, then > >>>>>>>> this might be something we can do fairly quickly? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 03/07/2019 05:55, Bowen Li wrote: > >>>>>>>> > I responded in the INFRA ticket [1] that I > believe they are > >>>>>>>> using a wrong > >>>>>>>> > metric against Flink and the total build time is > a completely > >>>>>>>> different > >>>>>>>> > thing than guaranteed build capacity. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > My response: > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > "As mentioned above, since I started to pay > attention to > >> Flink's > >>>>>>>> build > >>>>>>>> > queue a few tens of days ago, I'm in Seattle and > I saw no > >> build > >>>>>>>> was kicking > >>>>>>>> > off in PST daytime in weekdays for Flink. Our > teammates in > >> China > >>>>>>>> and Europe > >>>>>>>> > have also reported similar observations. So we > need to > >> evaluate > >>>>>>>> how the > >>>>>>>> > large total build time came from - if 1) your > number and 2) > >> our > >>>>>>>> > observations from three locations that cover > pretty much a > >> full > >>>>>>>> day, are > >>>>>>>> > all true, I **guess** one reason can be that - > highly likely > >> the > >>>>>>>> extra > >>>>>>>> > build time came from weekends when other Apache > projects may > >> be > >>>>>>>> idle and > >>>>>>>> > Flink just drains hard its congested queue. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining > about the lack > >> of > >>>>>>>> resources > >>>>>>>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of > **stable, > >>>>>>>> dedicated** > >>>>>>>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, > currently even > >> if > >>>>>>>> no build is > >>>>>>>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the > queue head > >>>>>>>> in PST > >>>>>>>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That > is an > >> absurd > >>>>>>>> amount of > >>>>>>>> > waiting time. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a > quota system > >> and > >>>>>>>> grants > >>>>>>>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the > time only for > >>>>>>>> Flink, that'll > >>>>>>>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > Please be aware of that we're not complaining > about the lack > >> of > >>>>>>>> resources > >>>>>>>> > in general, I'm complaining about the lack of > **stable, > >>>>>>>> dedicated** > >>>>>>>> > resources. An example for the latter one is, > currently even > >> if > >>>>>>>> no build is > >>>>>>>> > in Flink's queue and I submit a request to be the > queue head > >>>>>>>> in PST > >>>>>>>> > morning, my build won't even start in 6-8+h. That > is an > >> absurd > >>>>>>>> amount of > >>>>>>>> > waiting time. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > That's saying, if ASF INFRA decides to adopt a > quota system > >> and > >>>>>>>> grants > >>>>>>>> > Flink five DEDICATED servers that runs all the > time only for > >>>>>>>> Flink, that'll > >>>>>>>> > be PERFECT and can totally solve our problem now. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > I feel what's missing in the ASF INFRA's Travis > resource > >> pool is > >>>>>>>> some level > >>>>>>>> > of build capacity SLAs and certainty" > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > Again, I believe there are differences in nature > of these two > >>>>>>>> problems, > >>>>>>>> > long build time v.s. lack of dedicated build > resource. That's > >>>>>>>> saying, > >>>>>>>> > shortening build time may relieve the situation, > and may not. > >>>>>>>> I'm sightly > >>>>>>>> > negative on disabling IT cases for PRs, due to > the downside > >> is > >>>>>>>> that we are > >>>>>>>> > at risk of any potential bugs in PR that UTs > doesn't catch, > >> and > >>>>>>>> may cost a > >>>>>>>> > lot more to fix and if it slows others down or > even block > >>>>>>>> others, but am > >>>>>>>> > open to others opinions on it. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > AFAICT from INFRA ticket[1], donating to ASF > INFRA won't be > >>>>>>>> feasible to > >>>>>>>> > solve our problem since INFRA's pool is fully > shared and they > >>>>>>>> have no > >>>>>>>> > control and finer insights over resource > allocation to a > >>>>>>>> specific Apache > >>>>>>>> > project. As mentioned in [1], Apache Arrow is > moving away > >> from > >>>>>>>> ASF INFRA > >>>>>>>> > Travis pool (they are actually surprised Flink > hasn't plan > >> to do > >>>>>>>> so). I > >>>>>>>> > know that Spark is on its own build infra. If we > all agree > >> that > >>>>>>>> funding our > >>>>>>>> > own build infra, I'd be glad to help investigate any > >> potential > >>>>>>>> options > >>>>>>>> > after releasing 1.9 since I'm super busy with 1.9 > now. > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18533 > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:46 AM Chesnay Schepler > >>>>>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> >> As a short-term stopgap, since we can assume > this issue to > >>>>>>>> become much > >>>>>>>> >> worse in the following days/weeks, we could > disable IT > >> cases in > >>>>>>>> PRs and > >>>>>>>> >> only run them on master. > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> On 02/07/2019 12:03, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>> People really have to stop thinking that just > because > >>>>>>>> something works > >>>>>>>> >>> for us it is also a good solution. > >>>>>>>> >>> Also, please remember that our builds run for > 2h from > >> start to > >>>>>>>> finish, > >>>>>>>> >>> and not the 14 _minutes_ it takes for zeppelin. > >>>>>>>> >>> We are dealing with an entirely different scale > here, both > >> in > >>>>>>>> terms of > >>>>>>>> >>> build times and number of builds. > >>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>> In this very thread people have been > complaining about long > >>>>>>>> queue > >>>>>>>> >>> times for their builds. Surprise, other Apache > projects > >>>>>>>> have been > >>>>>>>> >>> suffering the very same thing due to us not > controlling our > >>>>>>>> build > >>>>>>>> >>> times. While switching services (be it Jenkins, > CircleCI or > >>>>>>>> whatever) > >>>>>>>> >>> will possibly work for us (and these options > are actually > >>>>>>>> attractive, > >>>>>>>> >>> like CircleCI's proper support for build > artifacts), it > >>>>>>>> will also > >>>>>>>> >>> result in us likely negatively affecting other > projects in > >>>>>>>> significant > >>>>>>>> >>> ways. > >>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>> Sure, the Jenkins setup has a good user > experience for us, > >> at > >>>>>>>> the cost > >>>>>>>> >>> of blocking Jenkins workers for a _lot_ of > time. Right now > >> we > >>>>>>>> have 25 > >>>>>>>> >>> PR's in our queue; that's possibly 50h we'd > consume of > >> Jenkins > >>>>>>>> >>> resources, and the European contributors > haven't even > >> really > >>>>>>>> started yet. > >>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>> FYI, the latest INFRA response from INFRA-18533: > >>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>> "Our rough metrics shows that Flink used over > 5800 hours of > >>>>>>>> build time > >>>>>>>> >>> last month. That is equal to EIGHT servers > running 24/7 for > >>>>>>>> the ENTIRE > >>>>>>>> >>> MONTH. EIGHT. nonstop. > >>>>>>>> >>> When we discovered this last night, we > discussed it some > >> and > >>>>>>>> are going > >>>>>>>> >>> to tune down Flink to allow only five executors > maximum. We > >>>>>>>> cannot > >>>>>>>> >>> allow Flink to consume so much of a Foundation > shared > >>>>>>>> resource." > >>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>> So yes, we either > >>>>>>>> >>> a) have to heavily reduce our CI usage or > >>>>>>>> >>> b) fund our own, either maintaining it ourselves or > >> donating > >>>>>>>> to Apache. > >>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>> On 02/07/2019 05:11, Bowen Li wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> By looking at the git history of the Jenkins > script, its > >> core > >>>>>>>> part > >>>>>>>> >>>> was finished in March 2017 (and only two minor > update in > >>>>>>>> 2017/2018), > >>>>>>>> >>>> so it's been running for over two years now > and feels like > >>>>>>>> Zepplin > >>>>>>>> >>>> community has been quite happy with it. @Jeff > Zhang > >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>> can > >> you > >>>>>>>> share your insights and user > >>>>>>>> >>>> experience with the Jenkins+Travis approach? > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> Things like: > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> - has the approach completely solved the > resource capacity > >>>>>>>> problem > >>>>>>>> >>>> for Zepplin community? is Zepplin community > happy with the > >>>>>>>> result? > >>>>>>>> >>>> - is the whole configuration chain stable > (e.g. uptime) > >>>>>>>> enough? > >>>>>>>> >>>> - how often do you need to maintain the > Jenkins infra? how > >>>>>>>> many > >>>>>>>> >>>> people are usually involved in maintenance and > bug-fixes? > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> The downside of this approach seems mostly to > be on the > >>>>>>>> maintenance > >>>>>>>> >>>> to me - maintain the script and Jenkins infra. > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> ** Having Our Own Travis-CI.com Account ** > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> Another alternative I've been thinking of is > to have our > >> own > >>>>>>>> >>>> travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> > <http://travis-ci.com> < > >> http://travis-ci.com> > >>>>>>>> account with paid dedicated > >>>>>>>> >>>> resources. Note travis-ci.org > <http://travis-ci.org> <http://travis-ci.org> > >>>>>>>> <http://travis-ci.org> is the free > >>>>>>>> >>>> version and travis-ci.com > <http://travis-ci.com> <http://travis-ci.com> > >>>>>>>> <http://travis-ci.com> is the commercial > >>>>>>>> >>>> version. We currently use a shared resource > pool managed > >> by > >>>>>>>> ASK INFRA > >>>>>>>> >>>> team on travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> > <http://travis-ci.org> > >>>>>>>> <http://travis-ci.org>, but we have no control > >>>>>>>> >>>> over it - we can't see how it's configured, > how much > >>>>>>>> resources are > >>>>>>>> >>>> available, how resources are allocated among > Apache > >> projects, > >>>>>>>> etc. > >>>>>>>> >>>> The nice thing about having an account on > travis-ci.com <http://travis-ci.com> > >>>>>>>> <http://travis-ci.com> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <http://travis-ci.com> are: > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> - relatively low cost with much better > resource guarantee > >>>>>>>> than what > >>>>>>>> >>>> we currently have [1]: $249/month with 5 dedicated > >>>>>>>> concurrency, > >>>>>>>> >>>> $489/month with 10 concurrency > >>>>>>>> >>>> - low maintenance work compared to using Jenkins > >>>>>>>> >>>> - (potentially) no migration cost according to > Travis's > >>>>>>>> doc [2] > >>>>>>>> >>>> (pending verification) > >>>>>>>> >>>> - full control over the build > capacity/configuration > >>>>>>>> compared to > >>>>>>>> >>>> using ASF INFRA's pool > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> I'd be surprised if we as such a vibrant > community cannot > >>>>>>>> find and > >>>>>>>> >>>> fund $249*12=$2988 a year in exchange for a > much better > >>>>>>>> developer > >>>>>>>> >>>> experience and much higher productivity. > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> [1] https://travis-ci.com/plans > >>>>>>>> >>>> [2] > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/migrate/open-source-repository-migration > >>>>>>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM Chesnay Schepler > >>>>>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> So yes, the Jenkins job keeps pulling the > state from > >>>>>>>> Travis until it > >>>>>>>> >>>> finishes. > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> Note sure I'm comfortable with the idea of using > >> Jenkins > >>>>>>>> workers > >>>>>>>> >>>> just to > >>>>>>>> >>>> idle for a several hours. > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> On 29/06/2019 14:56, Jeff Zhang wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> > Here's what zeppelin community did, we make a > >> python > >>>>>>>> script to > >>>>>>>> >>>> check the > >>>>>>>> >>>> > build status of pull request. > >>>>>>>> >>>> > Here's script: > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>>> > https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/travis_check.py > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> > And this is the script we used in Jenkins build > >> job. > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> > if [ -f "travis_check.py" ]; then > >>>>>>>> >>>> > git log -n 1 > >>>>>>>> >>>> > STATUS=$(curl -s $BUILD_URL | grep -e "GitHub > >> pull > >>>>>>>> >>>> request.*from.*" | sed > >>>>>>>> >>>> > 's/.*GitHub pull request <a > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > >> href=\"\(https[^"]*\).*from[^"]*.\(https[^"]*\).*/\1 > >>>>>>>> \2/g') > >>>>>>>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(echo $STATUS | sed > >> 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') > >>>>>>>> >>>> > PR=$(echo $STATUS | awk '{print $1}' | sed > >>>>>>>> >>>> 's/.*[/]\(.*\)$/\1/g') > >>>>>>>> >>>> > #COMMIT=$(git log -n 1 | grep "^Merge:" | awk > >>>>>>>> '{print $3}') > >>>>>>>> >>>> > #if [ -z $COMMIT ]; then > >>>>>>>> >>>> > # COMMIT=$(curl -s > >>>>>>>> >>>> > https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR > >>>>>>>> >>>> > | grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e > "\"sha\":" > >> | > >>>>>>>> tr '\n' ' ' > >>>>>>>> >>>> | sed > >>>>>>>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = > >> '\n' | > >>>>>>>> grep -v > >>>>>>>> >>>> "apache:" | > >>>>>>>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') > >>>>>>>> >>>> > #fi > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> > # get commit hash from PR > >>>>>>>> >>>> > COMMIT=$(curl -s > >>>>>>>> >>>> > https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR | > >>>>>>>> >>>> > grep -e "\"label\":" -e "\"ref\":" -e > "\"sha\":" | > >> tr > >>>>>>>> '\n' ' ' > >>>>>>>> >>>> | sed > >>>>>>>> >>>> > 's/\(.*sha[^,]*,\)\(.*ref.*\)/\1 = \2/g' | tr = > >> '\n' | > >>>>>>>> grep -v > >>>>>>>> >>>> "apache:" | > >>>>>>>> >>>> > sed 's/.*sha.[^"]*["]\([^"]*\).*/\1/g') > >>>>>>>> >>>> > sleep 30 # sleep few moment to wait travis > >> starts > >>>>>>>> the build > >>>>>>>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 > >>>>>>>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} > ${COMMIT} || > >>>>>>>> RET_CODE=$? > >>>>>>>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # try with > >> repository > >>>>>>>> name when > >>>>>>>> >>>> travis-ci is > >>>>>>>> >>>> > not available in the account > >>>>>>>> >>>> > RET_CODE=0 > >>>>>>>> >>>> > AUTHOR=$(curl -s > >>>>>>>> >>>> > https://api.github.com/repos/apache/zeppelin/pulls/$PR > >>>>>>>> >>>> > | grep '"full_name":' | grep -v > "apache/zeppelin" | > >>>>>>>> sed > >>>>>>>> >>>> > 's/.*[:][^"]*["]\([^/]*\).*/\1/g') > >>>>>>>> >>>> > python ./travis_check.py ${AUTHOR} > ${COMMIT} || > >>>>>>>> RET_CODE=$? > >>>>>>>> >>>> > fi > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> > if [ $RET_CODE -eq 2 ]; then # fail with > can't > >> find > >>>>>>>> build > >>>>>>>> >>>> information in > >>>>>>>> >>>> > the travis > >>>>>>>> >>>> > set +x > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo > >>>>>>>> "-----------------------------------------------------" > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "Looks like travis-ci is not > configured > >> for > >>>>>>>> your fork." > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "Please setup by swich on 'zeppelin' > >>>>>>>> repository at > >>>>>>>> >>>> > https://travis-ci.org/profile and travis-ci." > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "And then make sure 'Build branch > >> updates' > >>>>>>>> option is > >>>>>>>> >>>> enabled in > >>>>>>>> >>>> > the settings > >>>>>>>> https://travis-ci.org/${AUTHOR}/zeppelin/settings > <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings> > >>>>>>>> <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > <https://travis-ci.org/$%7BAUTHOR%7D/zeppelin/settings>." > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "" > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "To trigger CI after setup, you > will need > >>>>>>>> ammend your > >>>>>>>> >>>> last commit > >>>>>>>> >>>> > with" > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "git commit --amend" > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "git push your-remote HEAD --force" > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "" > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "See > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > http://zeppelin.apache.org/contribution/contributions.html#continuous-integration > >>>>>>>> >>>> > ." > >>>>>>>> >>>> > fi > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> > exit $RET_CODE > >>>>>>>> >>>> > else > >>>>>>>> >>>> > set +x > >>>>>>>> >>>> > echo "travis_check.py does not exists" > >>>>>>>> >>>> > exit 1 > >>>>>>>> >>>> > fi > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> > Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto: > >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> 于2019年6月29日周六 下午3:17写道： > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> Does this imply that a Jenkins job is active as > >> long > >>>>>>>> as the > >>>>>>>> >>>> Travis build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> runs? > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> On 26/06/2019 21:28, Bowen Li wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> Hi, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> @Dawid, I think the "long test running" as I > >>>>>>>> mentioned in the > >>>>>>>> >>>> first > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> email, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> also as you guys said, belongs to "a big > effort > >>>>>>>> which is much > >>>>>>>> >>>> harder to > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> accomplish in a short period of time and may > >> deserve > >>>>>>>> its own > >>>>>>>> >>>> separate > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> discussion". Thus I didn't include it in > what we > >> can > >>>>>>>> do in a > >>>>>>>> >>>> foreseeable > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> short term. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> Besides, I don't think that's the ultimate > reason > >>>>>>>> for lack of > >>>>>>>> >>>> build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> resources. Even if the build is shortened to > >>>>>>>> something like > >>>>>>>> >>>> 2h, the > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> problems of no build machine works about 6 or > >> more > >>>>>>>> hours in > >>>>>>>> >>>> PST daytime > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> that I described will still happen, because no > >>>>>>>> machine from > >>>>>>>> >>>> ASF INFRA's > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> pool is allocated to Flink. As I have paid > close > >>>>>>>> attention to > >>>>>>>> >>>> the build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> queue in the past few weekdays, it's a pretty > >> clear > >>>>>>>> pattern now. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> **The ultimate root cause** for that is - we > >> don't > >>>>>>>> have any > >>>>>>>> >>>> **dedicated** > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> build resources that we can stably rely > on. I'm > >>>>>>>> actually ok to > >>>>>>>> >>>> wait for a > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> long time if there are build requests > running, it > >>>>>>>> means at > >>>>>>>> >>>> least we are > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> making progress. But I'm not ok with no build > >>>>>>>> resource. A > >>>>>>>> >>>> better place I > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> think we should aim at in short term is to > always > >>>>>>>> have at > >>>>>>>> >>>> least a central > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> pool (can be 3 or 5) of machines dedicated to > >> build > >>>>>>>> Flink at > >>>>>>>> >>>> any time, or > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> maybe use users resources. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> @Chesnay @Robert I synced with Jeff > offline that > >>>>>>>> Zeppelin > >>>>>>>> >>>> community is > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> using a Jenkins job to automatically build on > >> users' > >>>>>>>> travis > >>>>>>>> >>>> account and > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> link the result back to github PR. I guess the > >>>>>>>> Jenkins job > >>>>>>>> >>>> would fetch > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> latest upstream master and build the PR > against > >> it. > >>>>>>>> Jeff has > >>>>>>>> >>>> filed > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> tickets > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> to learn and get access to the Jenkins infra. > >> It'll > >>>>>>>> better to > >>>>>>>> >>>> fully > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> understand it first before judging this > approach. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> I also heard good things about CircleCI, > and ASF > >>>>>>>> INFRA seems > >>>>>>>> >>>> to have a > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> pool > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> of build capacity there too. Can be an > >> alternative > >>>>>>>> to consider. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:44 AM Dawid > >> Wysakowicz < > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> [hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry to jump in late, but I think Bowen > missed > >> the > >>>>>>>> most > >>>>>>>> >>>> important point > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> from Chesnay's previous message in the > summary. > >> The > >>>>>>>> ultimate > >>>>>>>> >>>> reason for > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> all the problems is that the tests take close > >> to 2 > >>>>>>>> hours to > >>>>>>>> >>>> run already. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> I fully support this claim: "Unless > people start > >>>>>>>> caring about > >>>>>>>> >>>> test times > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> before adding them, this issue cannot be > solved" > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> This is also another reason why using user's > >> Travis > >>>>>>>> account > >>>>>>>> >>>> won't help. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> Every few weeks we reach the user's time > limit > >> for > >>>>>>>> a single > >>>>>>>> >>>> profile. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> This makes the user's builds simply fail, > until > >> we > >>>>>>>> either > >>>>>>>> >>>> properly > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> decrease the time the tests take (which I > am not > >>>>>>>> sure we ever > >>>>>>>> >>>> did) or > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> postpone the problem by splitting into more > >>>>>>>> profiles. (Note > >>>>>>>> >>>> that the ASF > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> Travis account has higher time limits) > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> Best, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> Dawid > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> On 26/06/2019 09:36, Robert Metzger wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> Do we know if using "the best" available > >> hardware > >>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>> >>>> improve the > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> times? > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> Imagine we would run the build on > machines with > >>>>>>>> plenty of > >>>>>>>> >>>> main memory > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> to > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> mount everything to ramdisk + the latest CPU > >>>>>>>> architecture? > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> Throwing hardware at the problem could help > >> reduce > >>>>>>>> the time > >>>>>>>> >>>> of an > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> individual build, and using our own > >> infrastructure > >>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>> >>>> remove our > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> dependency on Apache's Travis account > (with the > >>>>>>>> obvious > >>>>>>>> >>>> downside of > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> having > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> to maintain the infrastructure) > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> We could use an open source travis > >> alternative, to > >>>>>>>> have a > >>>>>>>> >>>> similar > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> experience and make the migration easy. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:34 AM Chesnay > >> Schepler > >>>>>>>> >>>> <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >From what I gathered, there's no special > >>>>>>>> sauce that the > >>>>>>>> >>>> Zeppelin > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> project uses which actually integrates > a users > >>>>>>>> Travis > >>>>>>>> >>>> account into the > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> PR. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> They just disabled Travis for PRs. And > that's > >>>>>>>> kind of it. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Naturally we can do this (duh) and safe the > >> ASF a > >>>>>>>> fair > >>>>>>>> >>>> amount of > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> resources, but there are downsides: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> The discoverability of the Travis check > takes > >> a > >>>>>>>> nose-dive. > >>>>>>>> >>>> Either we > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> require every contributor to always, an > every > >>>>>>>> commit, also > >>>>>>>> >>>> post a > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> Travis > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> build, or we have the reviewer sift through > >> the > >>>>>>>> >>>> contributors account > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> to > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> find it. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> This is rather cumbersome. > Additionally, it's > >>>>>>>> also not > >>>>>>>> >>>> equivalent to > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> having a PR build. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> A normal branch build takes a branch as > is and > >>>>>>>> tests it. A > >>>>>>>> >>>> PR build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> merges the branch into master, and then > runs > >> it. > >>>>>>>> (Fun fact: > >>>>>>>> >>>> This is > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> why > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> a PR without merge conflicts is not > being run > >> on > >>>>>>>> Travis.) > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> And ultimately, everyone can already > make use > >>>>>>>> of this > >>>>>>>> >>>> approach anyway. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> On 25/06/2019 08:02, Jark Wu wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jeff, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing the Zeppelin > approach. I > >>>>>>>> think it's a > >>>>>>>> >>>> good idea to > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> leverage user's travis account. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> In this way, we can have almost unlimited > >>>>>>>> concurrent build > >>>>>>>> >>>> jobs and > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> developers can restart build by themselves > >>>>>>>> (currently only > >>>>>>>> >>>> committers > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> can restart PR's build). > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> But I'm still not very clear how to > integrate > >>>>>>>> user's > >>>>>>>> >>>> travis build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> into > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> the Flink pull request's build > automatically. > >>>>>>>> Can you > >>>>>>>> >>>> explain more in > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> detail? > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Another question: does travis only build > >>>>>>>> branches for user > >>>>>>>> >>>> account? > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> My concern is that builds for PRs will > rebase > >>>>>>>> user's > >>>>>>>> >>>> commits against > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> current master branch. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> This will help us to find problems before > >>>>>>>> merge. Builds > >>>>>>>> >>>> for branches > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> will lose the impact of new commits in > >> master. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> How does Zeppelin solve this problem? > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again for sharing the idea. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jark > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:01, Jeff Zhang > >>>>>>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hi Folks, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Zeppelin meet this kind of issue > before, we > >>>>>>>> solve > >>>>>>>> >>>> it by > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> delegating > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> each > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> one's PR build to his travis account > >>>>>>>> (Everyone can > >>>>>>>> >>>> have 5 free > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> slot for > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis build). > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Apache account travis build is only > >>>>>>>> triggered when > >>>>>>>> >>>> PR is merged. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Kurt Young <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> 于2019年6月25日周二 上午10:16写道： > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > (Forgot to cc George) > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Best, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > Kurt > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kurt > >> Young > >>>>>>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Hi Bowen, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Thanks for bringing this up. We > >>>>>>>> actually have > >>>>>>>> >>>> discussed > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> about > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> this, and I > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > think Till and George have > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > already spend sometime investigating > >>>>>>>> it. I have > >>>>>>>> >>>> cced both of > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> them, and > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > maybe they can share > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > their findings. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Best, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > Kurt > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:08 AM > Jark Wu > >>>>>>>> >>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Hi Bowen, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Thanks for bringing this. We also > >>>>>>>> suffered from > >>>>>>>> >>>> the long > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> build time. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I agree that we should focus on > >>>>>>>> solving build > >>>>>>>> >>>> capacity > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> problem in the > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> thread. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> My observation is there is only one > >>>>>>>> build is > >>>>>>>> >>>> running, all > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> the > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> others > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> (other > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> PRs, master) are pending. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> The pricing plan[1] of travis shows > >>>>>>>> it can > >>>>>>>> >>>> support > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> concurrent > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > jobs. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> But I don't know which plan we are > >>>>>>>> using, might > >>>>>>>> >>>> be the free > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan for > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > open > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> source. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> I cc-ed Chesnay who may have some > >>>>>>>> experience on > >>>>>>>> >>>> Travis. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Regards, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> Jark > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> [1]: https://travis-ci.com/plans > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 08:11, > Bowen Li > >> < > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> [hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > Hi Steven, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > I think you may not read what I > >>>>>>>> wrote. The > >>>>>>>> >>>> discussion is > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> about > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > "unstable > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > build **capacity**", in > another word > >>>>>>>> >>>> "unstable / lack of > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> resources", > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > not "unstable build". > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:40 PM > >>>>>>>> Steven Wu > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > long and sometimes unstable > build > >> is > >>>>>>>> >>>> definitely a pain > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> point. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > I suspect the build failure > here in > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> flink-connector-kafka > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> is not > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> related > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > to > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > my change. but there is no easy > >>>>>>>> re-run the > >>>>>>>> >>>> build on > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> travis UI. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > search showed a trick of > >>>>>>>> close-and-open the > >>>>>>>> >>>> PR will > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> trigger rebuild. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> but > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that could add noises to the PR > >>>>>>>> activities. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/545555519 > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > travis-ci for my personal repo > >>>>>>>> often failed > >>>>>>>> >>>> with > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> exceeding time > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > limit > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > after > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 4+ hours. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > The job exceeded the maximum > time > >>>>>>>> limit for > >>>>>>>> >>>> jobs, and > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> has > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> been > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > terminated. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:15 PM > >>>>>>>> Bowen Li > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto: > >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> > https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/builds/549681530 > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> This build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > request > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > has > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > been sitting at **HEAD of the > >>>>>>>> queue** > >>>>>>>> >>>> since I first > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> saw > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> it at PST > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 10:30am > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > (not sure how long it's been > >>>>>>>> there before > >>>>>>>> >>>> 10:30am). > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> It's PST > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > 4:12pm > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> now > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > and > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > it hasn't started yet. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at > 2:48 PM > >>>>>>>> Bowen Li > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto: > >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > Hi devs, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I've been experiencing > the pain > >>>>>>>> >>>> resulting from lack > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> of stable > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > capacity on Travis for Flink > >>>>>>>> PRs [1]. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> Specifically, I > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> noticed > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> often > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > no > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build in the queue is making > >> any > >>>>>>>> >>>> progress for > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> hours, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> and > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > suddenly > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> 5 > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > or > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > 6 > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > builds kick off all together > >>>>>>>> after the > >>>>>>>> >>>> long pause. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> I'm at PST > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > (UTC-08) > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > time > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > zone, and I've seen > pause can > >>>>>>>> be as > >>>>>>>> >>>> long as 6 hours > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> from PST 9am > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> to > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > 3pm > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > (let alone the time > needed to > >>>>>>>> drain the > >>>>>>>> >>>> queue > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> afterwards). > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > I think this has greatly > >>>>>>>> impacted our > >>>>>>>> >>>> productivity. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> I've > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> experienced > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > that > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > PRs submitted in the early > >>>>>>>> morning of > >>>>>>>> >>>> PST time zone > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> won't finish > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > their > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build until late night > of the > >>>>>>>> same day. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > So my questions are: > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - Has anyone else > experienced > >>>>>>>> the same > >>>>>>>> >>>> problem or > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> have similar > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > observation > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > on TravisCI? (I suspect it > >>>>>>>> has things > >>>>>>>> >>>> to do with > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> time > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> zone) > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - What pricing plan of > >>>>>>>> TravisCI is > >>>>>>>> >>>> Flink currently > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> using? Is it > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> the > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > free > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > plan for open source > >>>>>>>> projects? What > >>>>>>>> >>>> are the > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> guaranteed build > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> capacity > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > of > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > the current plan? > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > - If the current pricing > plan > >>>>>>>> (either > >>>>>>>> >>>> free or paid) > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> can't > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > provide > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > stable > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build capacity, can we > >>>>>>>> upgrade to a > >>>>>>>> >>>> higher priced > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> plan with > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > larger > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > and > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > more > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > stable build capacity? > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > BTW, another factor that > >>>>>>>> contribute to > >>>>>>>> >>>> the > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> productivity problem > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > is > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > that > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > our build is slow - we run > >>>>>>>> full build > >>>>>>>> >>>> for every PR > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> and a > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> successful > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > full > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > build takes ~5h. We > >>>>>>>> definitely have > >>>>>>>> >>>> more options to > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> solve it, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > for > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > instance, > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > modularize the build graphs > >>>>>>>> and reuse > >>>>>>>> >>>> artifacts > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> from > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> the > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > previous > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > build. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > But I think that can be > a big > >>>>>>>> effort > >>>>>>>> >>>> which is much > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> harder to > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > accomplish > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > in > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > a short period of time and > >>>>>>>> may deserve > >>>>>>>> >>>> its own > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> separate > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> discussion. > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > [1] > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> > https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/pull_requests > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Jeff Zhang > >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > |
«
Return to (DEPRECATED) Apache Flink Mailing List archive.
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |