> A strong +1 to getting to a single CI system. CircleCI definitely has some > niceties and I understand why it's currently used, but right now we get 2 > CI systems for twice the price. +1 on the proposed subsets. >
That's not entirely true, it provides value in "double accounting" and that has caught a number of serious bugs over time. We need to keep this in mind as we go back to one CI (foundation) – we can't let bugs slip through bc blindspots. That said, how circleci was implemented not re-using any of the existing scripts, and even using entirely different ant and jvm invocations, hurts me to this day. Ultimately I have no objection to having multiple CI systems in use, so long as they have a common foundation. What's found now under .build/ is intended to be that. I encourage everyone to start running local tests like `.build/run-test.sh test my_test` (or w/ docker like `.build/docker/run-test.sh test my_test 11`) This approach does not build for you, so it's fast turn-around. It does do the test env setup for the different test types. I'm working next on switching ci-cassandra.a.o over to use these scripts in trunk (CASSANDRA-18665).
