[GHC DevOps Group] Phabricator -> GitHub?

[Manuel M T Chakravarty]

[RESENT MESSAGE — see https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devops-group/2017-October/000004.html]


> Am 09.10.2017 um 23:08 schrieb Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com <mailto:marlowsd at gmail.com>>:
> On 9 October 2017 at 13:04, Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com <mailto:marlowsd at gmail.com>> wrote:
> On 9 October 2017 at 12:10, Manuel M T Chakravarty <manuel.chakravarty at tweag.io <mailto:manuel.chakravarty at tweag.io>> wrote:
>> 
> 
> Thirdly, it still is much better than Phabricator on the new random tool front because it requires no custom infrastructure and the PRs still go through GitHub as usual.
> 
> I do buy the custom infrastructure argument in general - setting up our own CI has definitely taken a lot of Ben's time. I actually really liked having Travis for my GHC fork on GitHub.  That was when it used to work, before our build exceeded what Travis would give us. So I guess that illustrates two things: custom infrastructure is nice when it works, but we're at the mercy of the suppliers.
> 
> (sorry, I meant to say ”outsourced infrastructure", not "custom infrastructure" above)

Yes, you are right. As Mathieu wrote, the limits of Travis are why we are using CircleCI for the linear types fork of GHC. In other words, what we are proposing is something that we have tried with success.

Moreover, Mathieu has indicated that Tweag would be happy to contribute to a payed CI option if that should become necessary. (Ben’s time is worth much more than CI costs.)

Cheers,
Manuel



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devops-group/attachments/20171010/2d4ccf55/attachment.html>