Live data from Hacker News

Travis CI acquired by Idera

blog.travis-ci.com

71–80 of 132 posts

Re: Travis CI acquired by Idera

#71
post #8

Circle CI has been steadily taking marketshare away from Travis for many, many years. And in my personal experience, mostly because of Travis' slow pace of improvement. Using containers for testing blows away performance on Travis for comparable tasks. Travis had made some improvements this last year to their workflows, configuration, and platform, but too little too late. My experience in dealing with their customer…

I wonder if this kind of thing happens so often in software because we get fixated an idea of how a problem should be solved and lose sight of solving the problem. Better solutions that don't dovetail with our model of the world get discounted until the evidence is overwhelming.

Re: Travis CI acquired by Idera

#72
post #64
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel dirty for saying this but Azure Pipelines is the service that is tempting to me because of the power of its file format (variable substitution, conditionals, template tasks and steps).

No need to feel bad, it's a great product! I've been using Azure DevOps for a while now, and it's what I use for anything not OSS (I prefer GitHub for that, and TBH it's what others expect)

It's also interesting how much Open Source is moving to Pipelines for just build services, regardless of where their code is hosted. The Python setup on Pipelines is really cool to dig into if you get the chance. I believe Python has been using it as the primary CI for their GitHub repo for bit now, and from what I've heard they've looked into using Pipelines to support a test matrix nearly as robust as their older BuildBot config.

Re: Travis CI acquired by Idera

#73

Looking at Idera portfolio, I see Embracadero (Delphi developers for many years), Sencha (Ext.js), Assembla (was GutHub of Subversion era). So it seems like they buy companies and products that were big and very important among developersin the past, but not necessary leading the pack today. I didn't think of Travis in that regard, though in a past few month I started to see Circle CI badges popping here and there fo…

Yeah, I've been seeing lots of people switch to circle-ci or gitlab over the past year. Not totally sure why. Travis does what I need and I know how to use it, and I don't particularly want to learn something new for CI myself, I just want to code!

And I have been wondering if Circle-CI will be the next battle between Microsoft and Google.

Re: Travis CI acquired by Idera

#74
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I've been seeing lots of people switch to circle-ci or gitlab over the past year. Not totally sure why. Travis does what I need and I know how to use it, and I don't particularly want to learn something new for CI myself, I just want to code!

We switched from Travis CI to Circle CI because Circle CI was (a) significantly faster and (b) a little cheaper

We made a smilar decision in 2017. The reason was that our builds were stupidly slow because travis uses cheap instances. There was no option to fix that other by allowing more concurrent builds. Travis has no feature to actually allow users to have reserved instances of a particular type. Money was not the issue; the feature does not exist.

Builds were taking up to 20 minutes and with multiple team members doing prs, it was quite common to be stuck waiting for things to land to our integration environment. This slowed us down a lot and we fixed it by creating a build pipeline in amazon. In there we were able to pick one of their faster instance types and the exact same build ran in something like 5 minutes. I understand the team moved to gitlab pipelines after I left.

I was just discussing this with a guy that works at codeship, a berlin company that was acquired some time ago that creates build tools. He made the point that tools like that are getting replaced by deep pipeline integrations like provided by Gitlab.

There is a need for tight integration between build pipelines, version control systems, issue trackers, alerting, monitoring, cloud providers, kubernetes, etc. You can sort of do this partially but you typically have to deal with gazillions of SAAS solutions of varying quality that typically don't integrate that well and the devops related to that. E.g. making Jira aware of github PRs and build status in jenkins can probably be done but you are dealing with API tokens, access rights, and wonky webhooks, credit card payments, etc. The overhead of setting all of that up for every team is quite high and I've seen teams cut corners here because they have more important/interesting things to do. E.g. typical Jira setups have typically no meaningful integrations with either ci or version control systems. Even well run projects tend to have non trivial amounts of devops related time and cost to manage all this. Many projects simply start by copying whatever they did last time that wasn't completely horrible.

IMHO, this is potentially something MS could get right simply by creating deep integrations between e.g. Azure, Gitlab, and a few other things they own. IMHO, amazon is lacking a few things in their portfolio and it wouldn't surprise me to see them make a move either by launching or acquiring their own things. Google is another company that is missing a few essential things on this front.

Re: Travis CI acquired by Idera

#76
Looks like a lot of people are having troubles with Travis CI in this thread, we do too.

With so many competing CI services out there now, it's kind of hard to keep using Travis. They've added Windows support, which is great, but it's ridiculously slow. (a minute to run on Linux, 14 minutes on Windows). And with these slow downs, you quickly run into parallel build (I believe the limit is 3 builds per user).

Re: Travis CI acquired by Idera

#78
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Circle-CI offers Mac runner for public/open-source projects? This is the reason I haven't been able to migrate from Travis to Circle-CI for all my projects, I have an open-source Electron module that I need to test cross platform so Travis covers Linux and Mac and AppVeyor for Windows.

It's worth noting that Travis also supports windows builds now. Which to me is a HUGE value proposition over CircleCI.

It's a decent point, but if I need Windows based testing, I'll get myself a free Azure Pipeline account and get Windows in CI from the same folks.

Re: Travis CI acquired by Idera

#79
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need to feel bad, it's a great product! I've been using Azure DevOps for a while now, and it's what I use for anything not OSS (I prefer GitHub for that, and TBH it's what others expect)

It's also interesting how much Open Source is moving to Pipelines for just build services, regardless of where their code is hosted. The Python setup on Pipelines is really cool to dig into if you get the chance. I believe Python has been using it as the primary CI for their GitHub repo for bit now, and from what I've heard they've looked into using Pipelines to support a test matrix nearly as robust as their older B…

The onboarding process of Pipelines is very smooth once you manage to sort the OAuth/account stuff out. And they actually have helpful docs to boot.

Re: Travis CI acquired by Idera

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I've been seeing lots of people switch to circle-ci or gitlab over the past year. Not totally sure why. Travis does what I need and I know how to use it, and I don't particularly want to learn something new for CI myself, I just want to code!

We usually use CircleCI at my company. I never realised how good I had it until I had to use Travis at my current project :) To give an example: we have a monorepo and it's impossible to only run the tests of the project that has been updated. Even if you're ready to hack around with git. Even if you're ready to hack around with Travis internal functions. Because TRAVIS_COMMIT_RANGE is just broken. And your argument…

We also use travis + a monorepo and yeah TRAVIS_COMMIT_RANGE is broken. We end up just tagging successful master builds and generating our commit range off of that.

But yeah, so much of it is flaky, and the pricing is noncompetitive. Our current iteration has travis's docker client tunneling to an ec2-based docker server; it's both cheaper and faster and will hopefully make it easier to rip out Travis in the future.

Post reply on HN