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

Integrate Drone CI #24

Closed
tboerger opened this issue Nov 3, 2016 · 16 comments
Closed

Integrate Drone CI #24

tboerger opened this issue Nov 3, 2016 · 16 comments
Assignees
Labels
type/enhancement An improvement of existing functionality
Milestone

Comments

@tboerger
Copy link
Member

tboerger commented Nov 3, 2016

To keep the CI system as fast as possible we should replace TravisCI with Drone CI, we can use my hosted version or we can also run our own Drone CI instance, however we prefer.

@tboerger tboerger added the type/enhancement An improvement of existing functionality label Nov 3, 2016
@tboerger tboerger added this to the 1.0.0 milestone Nov 3, 2016
@lunny
Copy link
Member

lunny commented Nov 3, 2016

So which work should we do?

@strk
Copy link
Member

strk commented Nov 3, 2016

@tboerger how would drone make CI faster ? doesn't travis also support docker ?
That said, I'm ok with using Drone either in addition to or instead of Travis.

@tboerger
Copy link
Member Author

tboerger commented Nov 3, 2016

@lunny the question is if we want to launch our own drone instance or if we should use mine or if we should ask @bradrydzewski for access to beta.drone.io

@tboerger
Copy link
Member Author

tboerger commented Nov 3, 2016

@tboerger how would drone make CI faster ? doesn't travis also support docker ?
That said, I'm ok with using Drone either in addition to or instead of Travis.

Travis is always loaded and pretty slow, drone is not. Beside that is drone much more flexible.

@lunny
Copy link
Member

lunny commented Nov 4, 2016

At the beginning, we will use the public service of drone. I think. @tboerger

@strk
Copy link
Member

strk commented Nov 4, 2016

@bradrydzewski access to beta.drone.io would be great. I guess actual speed would depend on availability of agents.

@makhov
Copy link
Contributor

makhov commented Nov 6, 2016

I know that @tboerger loves Drone and I guess it will be good idea to use it instead of Travis, but I'm sure that we should use public service.

@xinity
Copy link
Contributor

xinity commented Nov 6, 2016

agree @makhov as we are an opensource project, why don't we use public service, i think that would help getting more people on board.
besides build speed is a real matter as the project grows we'll need more builds , more tests and thus more workers.

IMHO we should find a balance between growing needs and public service to attract more people on board.

@tboerger
Copy link
Member Author

tboerger commented Nov 7, 2016

beta.drone.io will be opened to everybody soon, it's the only public instance of the up2date drone version. Here it's pretty good that we can use whichever plugin we want and in worst case we can simply launch our own instance.

@lunny
Copy link
Member

lunny commented Nov 9, 2016

Is this work now?

@lunny
Copy link
Member

lunny commented Nov 9, 2016

Or we can put it on v1.1

@tboerger
Copy link
Member Author

tboerger commented Nov 9, 2016

This is a requirement for the build and test pipeline.

@lunny
Copy link
Member

lunny commented Nov 9, 2016

But we can use travis-ci on v1.0 if beta.drone.io is not ready.

@strk
Copy link
Member

strk commented Nov 17, 2016

Looks like this is addressed by #96

@strk
Copy link
Member

strk commented Nov 19, 2016

Should this be assigned to @metalmatze as he has an open PR addressing this ?

@tboerger
Copy link
Member Author

Resolved via #96

lunny referenced this issue in lunny/gitea Feb 7, 2019
@go-gitea go-gitea locked and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 23, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
type/enhancement An improvement of existing functionality
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants