Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[FLINK-17374] Remove travis-related files #11921

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

rmetzger
Copy link
Contributor

What is the purpose of the change

Disable build processing on travis-ci.

Brief change log

  • removed .travis.yml
  • removed files only needed for processing CI builds on travis

I will open one or more additional pull requests cleaning up the codebase as described in FLINK-17375.

@rmetzger
Copy link
Contributor Author

Note: one commit message is off [FLINK-17374][travis] Remove travis-related files], I will fix this with the first round of review of before merging.

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks a lot for your contribution to the Apache Flink project. I'm the @flinkbot. I help the community
to review your pull request. We will use this comment to track the progress of the review.

Automated Checks

Last check on commit 14cfe31 (Mon Apr 27 11:54:18 UTC 2020)

Warnings:

  • No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!

Mention the bot in a comment to re-run the automated checks.

Review Progress

  • ❓ 1. The [description] looks good.
  • ❓ 2. There is [consensus] that the contribution should go into to Flink.
  • ❓ 3. Needs [attention] from.
  • ❓ 4. The change fits into the overall [architecture].
  • ❓ 5. Overall code [quality] is good.

Please see the Pull Request Review Guide for a full explanation of the review process.


The Bot is tracking the review progress through labels. Labels are applied according to the order of the review items. For consensus, approval by a Flink committer of PMC member is required Bot commands
The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

  • @flinkbot approve description to approve one or more aspects (aspects: description, consensus, architecture and quality)
  • @flinkbot approve all to approve all aspects
  • @flinkbot approve-until architecture to approve everything until architecture
  • @flinkbot attention @username1 [@username2 ..] to require somebody's attention
  • @flinkbot disapprove architecture to remove an approval you gave earlier

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Apr 27, 2020

CI report:

Bot commands The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:
  • @flinkbot run travis re-run the last Travis build
  • @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

Copy link
Contributor

@zentol zentol left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do you want to remove all travis reference in this PR, or are you content with just removing files?

@zentol
Copy link
Contributor

zentol commented Apr 27, 2020

tools/log4j-travis.properties could also be renamed

@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ if [ -z "$HERE" ] ; then
exit 1 # fail
fi

source "${HERE}/travis/stage.sh"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

any reason why this is still called travis_watchdog.sh?

@rmetzger
Copy link
Contributor Author

Reported unstable test from CI run: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-17463

@rmetzger
Copy link
Contributor Author

rmetzger commented Apr 29, 2020

I don't know if it is a good idea or not, but I wanted to do a first quick PR to disable travis, and then do a bigger PR where I split things like travis_watchdog.sh into different utility files.

There are so many mentions of "travis" throughout the code, that this would require a much bigger change, and I didn't want to obfuscate this PR too much. FLINK-17375 is for tracking the cleanup work.

Copy link
Contributor

@zentol zentol left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it is a good idea too, was just wondering since you are also renaming that one directory.

But it appears we didn't break anything, so +1.

@rmetzger rmetzger closed this in b973b75 Apr 29, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
3 participants