[GHC DevOps Group] State of CI

[Manuel M T Chakravarty]

Thanks for the update!
Manuel

> Am 06.06.2018 um 02:30 schrieb Ben Gamari <ben at well-typed.com>:
> 
> Manuel M T Chakravarty <manuel.chakravarty at tweag.io> writes:
> 
>> Hi Ben,
>> 
> Hi Manuel,
> 
>> I just wanted to touch base regarding the state of the GHC CI effort.
>> 
>> As far as I am aware, we have CI running on both CircleCI and Appveyor
>> (with Google generously donating the build machines). Is that right?
>> 
> That is right. Alp and I have been steadily chipping away at the
> remaining build issues but otherwise things seem to be working well.
> 
>> Do these builds also generate complete build artefacts by now? (We
>> wanted to eventually generate everything including documentation
>> automatically.)
>> 
> 
> 
>> If I am not mistaken, we still can’t run CircleCI on Phab Diffs.
>> Moreover, there was some noise that Phabricator might be changing
>> their business model, which might make it less attractive for GHC (but
>> I am not sure about the details). Is that correct?
>> 
> That is correct. Phacility is moving to an explicitly pay-to-play model;
> the source is available, but they aren't accepting patches and opening
> tickets requires a support contract. This isn't the end of the world for
> us, but it certainly makes Phabricator less attractive in the long-run.
> However, given the recent GitHub news, I'm not sure this is a terribly
> attractive option either.
> 
> All of this certainly complicates the CI story. On one hand, I've been
> a tad reluctant to spend too much time hacking Phabricator/CircleCI
> integration together given the Phabricator situation. On the other hand,
> CircleCI and Appveyor both only support GitHub, so a move to, for
> instance, GitLab doesn't really unblock us.
> 
> For the time being I would say we should probably continue pushing ahead
> with Phabricator. It likely won't be too hard to get something working
> and it will finally allow us to begin moving away from Harbormaster.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> - Ben