Re: Travis and AppVeyor continuous integration [Re: feature/master/ci]

Forgot to answer on AppVeyor.

While AppVeyor doesn't seem to have the write permission requirement, I
still think GitHub Actions is a better choice. I run CI for windows using
them on a regular basis and I haven't had any issues with it. It's also
nice to have all the CI workflow in one place, written with one syntax.

Regards,
Thomas

On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 at 09:25, Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se> wrote:

> Hi Chap,
>
> I'm somewhat reluctant to TravisCI due to its requirement for write
> permissions to *all* my repositories and associated data. Why would anyone
> grant an external CI service such permissions just to handle CI of *one* of
> my repositories, and why don't they offer a read-only alternative? I know
> nothing about how secure the organization behind the service is and I'm
> surprised so few react to this. I don't know, perhaps I'm over cautious and
> perhaps I've misunderstood (if so, please explain what I'm missing) but so
> far, I've chosen to not use TravisCI.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas
>
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 22:25, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> On 08/27/20 15:32, Kartik Ohri wrote:
>> > I have opened a PR to merge the CI.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> > Should I add instructions to launch a
>> > manual build to ssh into the different build environments for the
>> purpose
>> > of debugging in the PR description as well ?
>>
>> If you're up for it, yes, that would be good information to have in one
>> place.
>>
>>
>> For Thomas, if you're watching:
>>
>> The description for pull request #289 [1] includes details on
>> administrative setup with Travis and AppVeyor in order for the
>> CI setup in the pull request to become operational.
>>
>> Would you like to do that part? Can/should I do that part?
>>
>> Earlier, you mentioned a possible preference for GitHub Actions.
>> The current proposed configuration uses Travis for testing x86_64
>> Ubuntu and Mac OS, and AppVeyor for x86_64 Windows (building with
>> MSVC and with MinGW-w64).
>>
>> I see that Travis has added some level of Windows support, so that
>> it might be possible at some future time to migrate the Windows tests
>> there and consolidate, and I see GitHub Actions also claiming support
>> for all three platforms.
>>
>> The two files .travis.yml [2] and appveyor.yml [3] are recognizably
>> small mutations of each other, suggesting what is probably the modest
>> effort of migrating either one or both to another service that comes
>> to be preferred, or even just to compare.
>>
>> I would propose to register with Travis and AppVeyor for now, and
>> merge #289 as-is, maintaining the option to migrate to another
>> service if desired in the future.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Chap
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/tada/pljava/pull/289
>> [2] https://github.com/tada/pljava/blob/943152b/.travis.yml
>> [3] https://github.com/tada/pljava/blob/943152b/appveyor.yml
>>
>>
>>