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

Travis - boost installation of reqs #126

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 10, 2018
Merged

Conversation

keradus
Copy link
Collaborator

@keradus keradus commented Jan 9, 2018

No description provided.

@keradus
Copy link
Collaborator Author

keradus commented Jan 9, 2018

failure on 5.3/7+ was fixed on #122 and are not related to this PR.

@lyrixx, could you give a look on this PR and merge it please ?

@lyrixx
Copy link
Member

lyrixx commented Jan 10, 2018

Could you rebase ? Thanks.

@keradus
Copy link
Collaborator Author

keradus commented Jan 10, 2018

rebased

@lyrixx
Copy link
Member

lyrixx commented Jan 10, 2018

Thanks @keradus.

@lyrixx lyrixx merged commit e88146c into gitonomy:master Jan 10, 2018
lyrixx added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 10, 2018
This PR was merged into the 1.0-dev branch.

Discussion
----------

Travis - boost installation of reqs

Commits
-------

e88146c Travis - boost installation of reqs
@lyrixx
Copy link
Member

lyrixx commented Jan 10, 2018

May be we can also add a cache layer on the $HOME/.composer dir ?

@keradus keradus deleted the travis branch January 10, 2018 10:49
@keradus
Copy link
Collaborator Author

keradus commented Jan 10, 2018

for such small package the benefit is minimal. i wouldn't deny it, but benefit is minimal

@lyrixx
Copy link
Member

lyrixx commented Jan 10, 2018

But it's free, right?

@keradus
Copy link
Collaborator Author

keradus commented Jan 10, 2018

no, uploading and retrieving the cache to/from s3 is not free
it's great when you have more deps, but for just those few, doesn't change much

@lyrixx
Copy link
Member

lyrixx commented Jan 10, 2018

OK, thanks for the clarification ;) I did not there were using S3 as a cache layer :/

@keradus
Copy link
Collaborator Author

keradus commented Jan 10, 2018

eg I saw solutions of putting fetched docker img to cache, and actually fetching full docker image from scratch is faster than fetching and pushing it back to s3 :D

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants