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

Clarify docs/marketing site: Github only? #503

Closed
kylecordes opened this issue Nov 4, 2019 · 5 comments · Fixed by #508
Closed

Clarify docs/marketing site: Github only? #503

kylecordes opened this issue Nov 4, 2019 · 5 comments · Fixed by #508
Labels

Comments

@kylecordes
Copy link

This is a "feature request" for the documentation to clarify who the target market (today) is:

From reading around here and in the documentation, I get the impression that Cirrus today works only with Git repositories stored in Github.

Is that true? If so it would be great if it was obvious on the home page of the site: It's a CI tool for your projects on Github. (I think?)

(It seems a little odd, I'm used to a slightly older generation of tools were you could point them to an arbitrary source code repository. )

@RDIL
Copy link
Contributor

RDIL commented Nov 4, 2019

This is true for now. I have mixed opinions on adding an explicit notation in the docs however.

@kylecordes
Copy link
Author

The current experience … is kind of awkward and confusing.

You click a button to try it out. Then slowly figure out that the only path to do so is the GitHub marketplace. Which is super cool if you happened to arrive looking for a GitHub add-on. But confusing if you arrived looking for CI for a thing not in GitHub.

Perhaps on the page where it offers to take you to the GitHub marketplace, right there will be a good place to capture the future interests of visitors whose code is not on GitHub? Let people sign up for a mailing list (right on that page) or something.

@RDIL
Copy link
Contributor

RDIL commented Nov 4, 2019

That is a nice idea, but in the meantime we have #10 and #9

@fkorotkov
Copy link
Contributor

@kylecordes good idea, there are more and more requests for other than GitHub support. Could you please describe your setup at the moment?

  • How do you host Git repository? Or use some other VCS?
  • Which tool do you use for code reviews?
  • How do you prefer to get notifications from a CI? Emails, notifications, integration with some messenger, etc..

@kylecordes
Copy link
Author

(I am responsible for an array of projects running on different infrastructure etc, but here is my use case at hand.)

I have a project happily running on BitBucket, which has features similar to GitHub (code review and more), plus integration with other Atlassian products - an ecosystem of connected, useful capabilities. All the collaborators, current and likely future, can trivially access this.

Bitbucket has a CI feature, “Pipelines”. Pipelines is Linux-only, and has a limited range of configurability around the size of hardware used to run CI. (BitBucket probably won't displace GitHub as the most popular, but it's not going away, either. Same for GitLab and 20 others ways of hosting a Git repo.)

My project at hand:

  • Must also CI on Windows ASAP, hence here I am, looking around.
  • Could benefit from CI on Linux on bigger VMs, trivially available on (for example) GCP or AWS.

Being able to plug in Cirrus, have it watch the Git repository, run builds, and send email (or perhaps chat) notifications of the results, would solve my problem at hand. (It's also pretty easy to get a webhook notification from BitBucket, to avoid polling.)

How many people have this same shaped problem? I don't know - but it does provide an avenue by which to get a "nose under the tent" on projects currently using a different CI system.

Of course, juggling priorities in a SaaS product is hard! (Been there, done that.) I have no idea if effort spent supporting any non-GitHub use cases make sense for Cirrus.

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants