search

espressomd / espresso

The ESPResSo package
https://espressomd.org
GNU General Public License v3.0
229 stars 185 forks source link

Jekins and Travis integration for Cmake #521

Closed fweik closed 8 years ago

fweik commented 8 years ago

I'm considering removing tavis again. We can get the same functionality with jenkins, and then we could not have to maintain two systems. Also the waiting times on travis have been so long lately that it would better be called not-so-continuous integration. Any opinion on that?

mkuron commented 8 years ago

Travis has a nicer Github integration. It shows the status right there in the pull request. Is it really that much work to maintain both? Besides the ongoing CMake migration, there are probably not many times when the CI needs to be touched.

Regarding the waiting times: Perhaps done.io is better?

fweik commented 8 years ago

The documentation of the jenkins github plugin claims they have the same level of integration. Jenkins also has the advantage that we can test CUDA code in pull requests.

RudolfWeeber commented 8 years ago

I'm considering removing tavis again. We can get the same functionality with jenkins, and then we could not have to maintain two systems. Also the waiting times on travis have been so long lately that it would better be called not-so-continuous integration. Any opinion on that? I'd vote to keep travis, since I also use it on my personal repo with Espresso. I find it helpful to see travis results for stuff for which I don't want to open a pull request.

Marcello-Sega commented 8 years ago

Dear all,

if I had to choose one, I would like to keep travis...but I also wonder wether it's really that much work to keep both.

Cheers,

M

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:40 PM, RudolfWeeber notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm considering removing tavis again. We can get the same functionality with jenkins, and then we could not have to maintain two systems. Also the waiting times on travis have been so long lately that it would better be called not-so-continuous integration. Any opinion on that? I'd vote to keep travis, since I also use it on my personal repo with Espresso. I find it helpful to see travis results for stuff for which I don't want to open a pull request.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/espressomd/espresso/issues/521#issuecomment-191263344 .

University of Vienna, Institute of Computational Physics

fweik commented 8 years ago

We still need to keep jenkins, because self-hosting is the only way to test GPU code. I'm not happy about that either. Travis has wired stuff going on with their python environment, which I'm trying to figure out. This came about because I had to change the platform from Ubuntu 12.04 to 14.04 to have a newer compiler available.

To stress that again, the main problem with travis is that it is not working atm.

mkuron commented 8 years ago

drone.io works and is very fast. https://drone.io/github.com/mkuron/espresso/ Unfortunately, it seems like it doesn't have the build matrix functionality that Travis offers. So you can only specify one script that is to be run, not an entire .travis.yml-like file. That functionality only exists in the self-hosted version of Drone.

RudolfWeeber commented 8 years ago

s this resolved?