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

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
>
>
>