Apache has it's own shared Travis fleet. We are basically using an on-premise version of the paid Travis plan. That was the information I got from Infra when I had a chat with them a few days ago. But from that conversation it was made pretty clear that we cannot increase the limits.
-Marco kellen sunderland <[email protected]> schrieb am Di., 2. Okt. 2018, 03:25: > 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 > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> >
