[Pulp-dev] Moving to Github Actions

David Davis daviddavis at redhat.com
Wed Feb 5 14:03:50 UTC 2020

Great question. IMO the main benefit in continuing to support Travis is
that we could better separate our test/deployment code from the CI specific
bits so that most of the plugin_template code could be CI agnostic. That
said, this would be more work. I think it comes down to whether we want our
plugin_template to be more opinionated or more configurable.


On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 8:18 AM Dana Walker <dawalker at redhat.com> wrote:

> +1 to moving to Github Actions.
> Can anyone think of reasons a plugin would want to stay with Travis
> specifically?  As fao89 pointed out on the issue, at least each plugin that
> does choose to move takes some of the workload with them to free up job
> runners for plugins that choose to remain.
> Dana Walker
> She / Her / Hers
> Software Engineer, Pulp Project
> Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>
> dawalker at redhat.com
> <https://www.redhat.com>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:26 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Over the past year, we've experienced several growing pains with using
>> Travis as our CI/CD environment. Perhaps the biggest has been the
>> limitation of having only 3 concurrent job runners[0] across our entire
>> Pulp organization. At times, it has slowed development by bottlenecking the
>> merging of PRs and delayed numerous releases of Pulp.
>> Last year, Github introduced Github Actions which offers open source
>> projects 20 concurrent jobs[1]. I've filed an issue here to get feedback on
>> moving our repos and plugins to Github Actions:
>> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6065
>> Also, @fao89 has opened a couple PoC PRs to demonstrate using Github
>> Actions:
>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/pull/353
>> https://github.com/pulp/ansible-pulp/pull/217
>> You'll notice for example that the ansible-pulp build time went from more
>> than 1 hour[2] to 27 minutes[3] as all the jobs ran in parallel on Github
>> Actions.
>> Unless there are objections, we plan to merge the ansible-pulp PR this
>> week since it's CI configuration is independent from other pulp and plugin
>> repos (ie it doesn't use the plugin_template's Travis files).
>> We're hoping though to get feedback on whether we should move pulpcore
>> and plugin repos to Github Actions. If so, should we provide plugins with
>> the option to continue using Travis if they want?
>> If there's no objections by February 11, 2020, we'll proceed with moving
>> pulp_file to Github Actions and look at updating plugin_template.
>> [0] https://travis-ci.com/plans
>> [1]
>> https://help.github.com/en/actions/automating-your-workflow-with-github-actions/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#usage-limits
>> [2] https://travis-ci.org/pulp/ansible-pulp/builds/645651353
>> [3] https://github.com/fabricio-aguiar/ansible-pulp/actions/runs/33601847
>> David
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20200205/044de2cf/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list