Interesting, this page seems to indicate that private projects do have a longer time out. I'll drop Travis a quick email and see what the deal would be for our project. https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/customizing-the-build/#build-timeouts.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018, 3:15 AM kellen sunderland <[email protected]> wrote: > I actually thought we were already using a paid plan through Apache > https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/apache_gains_additional_travis_ci > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018, 3:11 AM Qing Lan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Are we currently on a free plan? If we are, probably the unlimited build >> minutes would help >> >> Thanks, >> Qing >> >> On 10/1/18, 6:08 PM, "kellen sunderland" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Does the global time out change for paid plans? I looked into it >> briefly >> but didn't see anything that would indicate it does. >> >> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018, 2:25 AM Pedro Larroy < >> [email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > I think there's two approaches that we can take to mitigate the >> build & >> > test time problem, in one hand use a paid travis CI plan, in other >> improve >> > the unit tests in suites and only run a core set of tests, as we >> should do >> > on devices, but on this case we reduce coverage. >> > >> > https://travis-ci.com/plans >> > >> > Pedro. >> > >> > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 6:53 PM YiZhi Liu <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > This makes sense. Thanks >> > > >> > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 6:36 PM kellen sunderland < >> > > [email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hey Zhennan, yes this is the exact problem, and I agree with >> your >> > points >> > > > completely. This is why when we first added Travis we >> attempted to >> > > > communicate that it would be informational only, and that we'd >> need to >> > > > iterate on the config before it would be a test that people >> should >> > > consider >> > > > 'required'. Apologies, we should have been more >> straightforward about >> > > > those tradeoffs. The strong point in favour of adding Travis in >> > > > informational mode was that we had a serious MacOS specific bug >> that we >> > > > wanted to verify was fixed. >> > > > >> > > > The good news is I've opened a PR which I hope will speed up >> these >> > builds >> > > > to the point that they won't rely on caching. Once it is >> merged it >> > would >> > > > be very helpful if you could rebase on this PR and test to >> ensure that >> > > > large changes no longer hit the global timeout without cache. >> > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12706 >> > > > >> > > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 2:48 AM Qin, Zhennan < >> [email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi YiZhi and Kellen, >> > > > > >> > > > > From my point of view, travis should be able to get passed >> from a >> > > scratch >> > > > > build. Pending result on ccache hit/miss is not a good idea. >> For this >> > > PR, >> > > > > as it changed many header file, lots of files need be >> recompiled, >> > just >> > > > like >> > > > > a scratch build. I think that's the reason that travis >> timeout. This >> > > > should >> > > > > be fixed before enabling travis, as it will block any change >> to those >> > > > base >> > > > > header file. Again, it's not a special case with this PR >> only, you >> > can >> > > > find >> > > > > same problem on other PRs: >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://travis-ci.org/apache/incubator-mxnet/builds/433172088?utm_source=github_status&utm_medium=notification >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://travis-ci.org/apache/incubator-mxnet/builds/434404305?utm_source=github_status&utm_medium=notification >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > Zhennan >> > > > > >> > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > > From: YiZhi Liu [mailto:[email protected]] >> > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2018 5:15 AM >> > > > > To: [email protected] >> > > > > Cc: [email protected] >> > > > > Subject: Re: Time out for Travis CI >> > > > > >> > > > > while other PRs are all good. >> > > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 2:13 PM YiZhi Liu < >> [email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Honestly I don't know yet. I can help to investigate. Just >> given >> > the >> > > > > > evidence that, travis timeout every time it gets >> re-triggered - 2 >> > > > > > times at least. Correct me if I'm wrong @ Zhennan On Sat, >> Sep 29, >> > > 2018 >> > > > > > at 1:54 PM kellen sunderland <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Reading over the PR I don't see what aspects would cause >> extra >> > > > > > > runtime YiZhi, could you point them out? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:46 PM YiZhi Liu < >> [email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Kellen, I think this PR introduces extra runtime in CI, >> thus >> > > > > > > > causes the timeout. Which means, once merged, every PR >> later >> > will >> > > > > > > > see same timeout in travis. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > So shall we modify the changes to decrease the test >> running >> > time? >> > > > > > > > or just disable the Travis CI? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:17 PM Qin, Zhennan >> > > > > > > > <[email protected]> >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi Kellen, >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Thanks for your explanation. Do you have a time plan >> to solve >> > > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > timeout issue? Rebasing can't work for my case. Or >> shall we run >> > > it >> > > > > > > > silently to disallow it voting X for overall CI result? >> Because >> > > > > > > > most developers are used to ignore the PRs with 'X'. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > > > > > Zhennan >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > > > > > > From: kellen sunderland [mailto: >> [email protected]] >> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 10:38 PM >> > > > > > > > > To: [email protected] >> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Time out for Travis CI >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hey Zhennan, you're safe to ignore Travis failures >> for now. >> > > > > > > > > They're >> > > > > > > > just informational. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The reason you sometimes see quick builds and >> sometimes see >> > > slow >> > > > > > > > > builds >> > > > > > > > is that we're making use of ccache in between builds. >> If your >> > PR >> > > > > > > > is similar to what's in master you should build very >> quickly, >> > if >> > > > > > > > not it's going to take a while and likely time out. If >> you see >> > > > > > > > timeouts rebasing may speed things up. Unfortunately >> the >> > > timeouts >> > > > > > > > are global and we're not able to increase them. I'm >> hoping >> > that >> > > > > > > > adding artifact caching will speed up future builds to >> the >> > point >> > > > > > > > that test runs and builds can be executed in under the >> global >> > > limit >> > > > > (which is ~50 minutes). >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -Kellen >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:05 PM Qin, Zhennan >> > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Hi MXNet devs, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I'm struggled with new Travis CI for a while, it >> always run >> > > > > > > > > > time out for this PR: >> > > > > > > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12530 >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Most of the time, Jenkins CI can pass, while Travis >> can't >> > be >> > > > > > > > > > finished within 50 minutes. For this PR, it >> shouldn't >> > affect >> > > > > > > > > > much on the build time or unit test time. Also, I >> saw other >> > > PR >> > > > > has same problem, eg. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > https://travis-ci.org/apache/incubator-mxnet/builds/433172088? >> > > > > > > > > > utm_sour ce=github_status&utm_medium=notification >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > https://travis-ci.org/apache/incubator-mxnet/builds/434404305? >> > > > > > > > > > utm_sour ce=github_status&utm_medium=notification >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > According to the time stamp from Travis, all passed >> PR are >> > > > > > > > > > within small code change, and can complete `make >> -j2` >> > within >> > > > > > > > > > 25s. But for timeout case, 'make -j2' will need >> about >> > 1600s. >> > > > > > > > > > Does Travis do incremental build for each test? >> Shall we >> > > > > > > > > > increase time limit for large PR? Can we add more >> time >> > stamp >> > > > > > > > > > for build and unites stage to >> > > > > > > > help understand what's going on there? >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance, >> > > > > > > > > > Zhennan >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > Yizhi Liu >> > > > > > > > DMLC member >> > > > > > > > Amazon Web Services >> > > > > > > > Vancouver, Canada >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > Yizhi Liu >> > > > > > DMLC member >> > > > > > Amazon Web Services >> > > > > > Vancouver, Canada >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > Yizhi Liu >> > > > > DMLC member >> > > > > Amazon Web Services >> > > > > Vancouver, Canada >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > -- >> > > Yizhi Liu >> > > DMLC member >> > > Amazon Web Services >> > > Vancouver, Canada >> > > >> > >> >> >>
