Add AppVeyor support. #5115

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jul 19, 2016

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@XhmikosR
Contributor

XhmikosR commented Jul 18, 2016

This is the second attempt after a long time. Now AppVeyor is 10x faster so there shouldn't be a problem there.

Someone from the repo owners (/CC @parkr) should enable AppVeyor for the whole repo when the errors are fixed.

I tried to mimic the Travis config as close as possible.

BTW, if you want to see what is currently failing, check https://ci.appveyor.com/project/XhmikosR/jekyll until someone enables AppVeyor for this repo.

@parkr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@parkr

parkr Jul 19, 2016

Member

Thanks, @XhmikosR! Is there any configuration required on the AppVeyor side that I have to do in order to get this working?

Member

parkr commented Jul 19, 2016

Thanks, @XhmikosR! Is there any configuration required on the AppVeyor side that I have to do in order to get this working?

@parkr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@parkr

parkr Jul 19, 2016

Member

LGTM. @jekyll/core, you down to add this? The tests will fail for a while but all the more reason to fix them. We have historically not supported Windows because we don't have development machines which run Windows but we could get closer to supporting it with this CI strategy.

/cc @jekyll/windows

Member

parkr commented Jul 19, 2016

LGTM. @jekyll/core, you down to add this? The tests will fail for a while but all the more reason to fix them. We have historically not supported Windows because we don't have development machines which run Windows but we could get closer to supporting it with this CI strategy.

/cc @jekyll/windows

@XhmikosR

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@XhmikosR

XhmikosR Jul 19, 2016

Contributor

@parkr: only enable AppVeyor for the repo and enable "skip branches without appveyor.yml". Everything else should be set up already.

Contributor

XhmikosR commented Jul 19, 2016

@parkr: only enable AppVeyor for the repo and enable "skip branches without appveyor.yml". Everything else should be set up already.

@XhmikosR

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@XhmikosR

XhmikosR Jul 19, 2016

Contributor

@parkr:

... and enable "skip branches without appveyor.yml"

One thing that's different compared to Travis is

  1. No jruby
  2. fast_finish
  3. notifications setup

For the first we can't do anything, but should I remove fast_finish?

For the notifications, I'll leave that to the team to set up.

Contributor

XhmikosR commented Jul 19, 2016

@parkr:

... and enable "skip branches without appveyor.yml"

One thing that's different compared to Travis is

  1. No jruby
  2. fast_finish
  3. notifications setup

For the first we can't do anything, but should I remove fast_finish?

For the notifications, I'll leave that to the team to set up.

@envygeeks

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@envygeeks

envygeeks Jul 19, 2016

Contributor

@XhmikosR

No jruby

This is fine, our JRuby support is waiting for me (or really anybody) to get the time to finish cleaning it up so that @jekyll/core can make it official. Right now it's lowdown supported simply because we use JRuby here where I am.

Contributor

envygeeks commented Jul 19, 2016

@XhmikosR

No jruby

This is fine, our JRuby support is waiting for me (or really anybody) to get the time to finish cleaning it up so that @jekyll/core can make it official. Right now it's lowdown supported simply because we use JRuby here where I am.

@XhmikosR

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@XhmikosR

XhmikosR Jul 19, 2016

Contributor

@envygeeks: How about fast_finish?

Contributor

XhmikosR commented Jul 19, 2016

@envygeeks: How about fast_finish?

@envygeeks

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@envygeeks

envygeeks Jul 19, 2016

Contributor

@XhmikosR if we slim down what Rubies we support and can go parallel on Cucumber and Units I don't think that'll really be a big problem. We use fast_finish on Travis because we've so many versions to test on. If @jekyll/core is cool I think for AppVeyor we only test on the most common version of Windows Ruby for now.

Contributor

envygeeks commented Jul 19, 2016

@XhmikosR if we slim down what Rubies we support and can go parallel on Cucumber and Units I don't think that'll really be a big problem. We use fast_finish on Travis because we've so many versions to test on. If @jekyll/core is cool I think for AppVeyor we only test on the most common version of Windows Ruby for now.

@envygeeks

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@envygeeks

envygeeks Jul 19, 2016

Contributor

Let me rephrase this: "if we slim down what Rubies we support"
It should really read: "If we slim down what Rubies we test on."

Contributor

envygeeks commented Jul 19, 2016

Let me rephrase this: "if we slim down what Rubies we support"
It should really read: "If we slim down what Rubies we test on."

@parkr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@parkr

parkr Jul 19, 2016

Member

If @jekyll/core is cool I think for AppVeyor we only test on the most common version of Windows Ruby for now.

👍 on this. No need for fast_finish or jruby on Windows.

Member

parkr commented Jul 19, 2016

If @jekyll/core is cool I think for AppVeyor we only test on the most common version of Windows Ruby for now.

👍 on this. No need for fast_finish or jruby on Windows.

@parkr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@parkr

parkr Jul 19, 2016

Member

LGTM.

Member

parkr commented Jul 19, 2016

LGTM.

@envygeeks

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@envygeeks

envygeeks Jul 19, 2016

Contributor

LGTM.

Contributor

envygeeks commented Jul 19, 2016

LGTM.

@parkr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@parkr

parkr Jul 19, 2016

Member

@jekyllbot: merge +dev

Member

parkr commented Jul 19, 2016

@jekyllbot: merge +dev

@jekyllbot jekyllbot merged commit 51f5c28 into jekyll:master Jul 19, 2016

2 of 3 checks passed

continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build failed
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
jekyll/lgtm Approved by @parkr and @envygeeks.

jekyllbot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 19, 2016

stevecheckoway added a commit to stevecheckoway/jekyll that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2016

@XhmikosR XhmikosR referenced this pull request Jul 28, 2016

Closed

3.2.0 broken on Windows #5146

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment