Skip to content

Remove Precise Travis CI builds #366

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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 16, 2018
Merged

Remove Precise Travis CI builds #366

merged 3 commits into from
Jan 16, 2018

Conversation

lildude
Copy link
Member

@lildude lildude commented Jan 15, 2018

Updated: After taking on feedback, this PR only removes the obsolete Ubuntu Precise builds.


Originally:

macOS is not officially supported and waiting for Travis to run our tests can take many many hours queuing alone. Local dev should be sufficient testing.

Precise is dead and no longer receiving security updates except for those with deep pockets paying Canonical lots of money for "Extended security maintenance for advanced customers" so we probably don't need to keep testing on it either.

So what's the impact? The build one before this one took:

screen shot 2018-01-15 at 17 27 04

The one before this one is still running:

screen shot 2018-01-15 at 17 27 43

This one:

screen shot 2018-01-15 at 17 29 01

The big times are almost exclusively waiting in the macOS queue.

/cc @github/backup-utils

macOS is not officially supported and can spend many hours queuing to
run. Local dev should be sufficient testing.

Precise is dead and no longer receiving security updates.
@dmittman
Copy link

macOS support is useful, and generally only requires minor modifications. As long as you're willing to entertain pull requests that maintain macOS compatibility, I'd be okay doing without a macOS CI build. Any idea why the macOS builds are taking so long?

@lildude
Copy link
Member Author

lildude commented Jan 15, 2018

As long as you're willing to entertain pull requests that maintain macOS compatibility

Definitely. It's what most of us use to dev backup-utils 😄

Any idea why the macOS builds are taking so long?

Yeah, Travis doesn't have the capacity for the demand for public repo builds and can't really scale it
like they can Linux builds so we'll always have a backlog to contend with 😞 . Ref: travis-ci/travis-ci#7304 (comment)

Looking at https://www.traviscistatus.com/ it looks like they're limited to 90 concurrent macOS builds with a backlog that grows beautifully during 🇺🇸 waking hours 😄

screen shot 2018-01-15 at 18 05 21

I'm happy to add macOS back if others feel it needs to remain.

@rubiojr
Copy link
Member

rubiojr commented Jan 15, 2018

I'm happy to add macOS back if others feel it needs to remain.

@lildude 👍 to leave it around. If we need to quickly merge PRs (release PRs, critical fixes, etc), we could always ignore it.

@lildude lildude changed the title Remove macOS and Precise Travis CI builds Remove Precise Travis CI builds Jan 16, 2018
@lildude
Copy link
Member Author

lildude commented Jan 16, 2018

@rubiojr macOS builds are back. Only Precise builds are removed now.

@lildude
Copy link
Member Author

lildude commented Jan 16, 2018

I'm going to go ahead and merge this without waiting for the final macOS build to run. The travis-ci/pr job includes the same tests and finally ran after queuing for ~6h20m. The travis-c/push job has been queuing for over 7h30m already 😱

@lildude lildude merged commit 2e5bafd into master Jan 16, 2018
@lildude lildude deleted the lildude/update-travis-cfg branch January 16, 2018 16:59
pluehne pushed a commit to pluehne/backup-utils that referenced this pull request Aug 8, 2023
Implementing incremental mysql backups for 3.10

Co-authored-by: Dax Amin <daxamin@github.com>
Co-authored-by: Manuel Bergler <manue1@github.com>
Co-authored-by: Chuck Pathanjali <98570028+chuckp22@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants