Fog CI

[Kyle Rames]

I was asked this morning why Fog used Travis CI for continuous integration.
I had assumed because it was the most populate CI system for Rubyists, but
I just wanted to make sure I had my facts straight.

Why did Fog chose Travis? Did we ever use anything else? If so, why did we
switch?

Thanks!

Kyle

[geemus (Wesley Beary)]

Previously there was no CI, I just ran the tests locally on my own machine.
So we clearly needed something. Travis is something I (and other
contributors) had a good deal of experience with and didn't involve having
to do much additional setup or ongoing maintenance, so it seemed like a win
all around.

What else would we use?

Post by Kyle Rames
I was asked this morning why Fog used Travis CI for continuous
integration. I had assumed because it was the most populate CI system for
Rubyists, but I just wanted to make sure I had my facts straight.
Why did Fog chose Travis? Did we ever use anything else? If so, why did we
switch?
Thanks!
Kyle
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ruby-fog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Kyle Rames]

Thanks Geemus!

I figured that was the reason, but I didn't want to guess. I was just asked
if we were ever using hudson/jenkins and if so why did we switch.

Looking at ruby-toolbox, travis is the most popular and that's what I would
start using if I were to start up a new ruby project.

Kyle

Post by geemus (Wesley Beary)
Previously there was no CI, I just ran the tests locally on my own
machine. So we clearly needed something. Travis is something I (and other
contributors) had a good deal of experience with and didn't involve having
to do much additional setup or ongoing maintenance, so it seemed like a win
all around.
What else would we use?

Post by Kyle Rames
I was asked this morning why Fog used Travis CI for continuous
integration. I had assumed because it was the most populate CI system for
Rubyists, but I just wanted to make sure I had my facts straight.
Why did Fog chose Travis? Did we ever use anything else? If so, why did
we switch?
Thanks!
Kyle
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"ruby-fog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Frederick Cheung]

And the fact that it's a (free) hosted service is a big plus if you don't want to setup and maintain your own CI server. It also makes testing against different ruby versions, gem versions very easy whereas that is something you'd have to setup yourself with (e.g.) jenkins

Fred

Post by Kyle Rames
Thanks Geemus!
I figured that was the reason, but I didn't want to guess. I was just asked if we were ever using hudson/jenkins and if so why did we switch.
Looking at ruby-toolbox, travis is the most popular and that's what I would start using if I were to start up a new ruby project.
Kyle
Previously there was no CI, I just ran the tests locally on my own machine. So we clearly needed something. Travis is something I (and other contributors) had a good deal of experience with and didn't involve having to do much additional setup or ongoing maintenance, so it seemed like a win all around.
What else would we use?
I was asked this morning why Fog used Travis CI for continuous integration. I had assumed because it was the most populate CI system for Rubyists, but I just wanted to make sure I had my facts straight.
Why did Fog chose Travis? Did we ever use anything else? If so, why did we switch?
Thanks!
Kyle
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ruby-fog" group.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ruby-fog" group.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[geemus (Wesley Beary)]

The downside in our case is that it is difficult/tricky to set it up to run
non-mocked tests due to having to put credentials somewhere (hence why we
don't do this). jenkins/hudson would deal with this, but I don't personally
want to take on that maintenance (and would be skeptical of handing my
credentials to somebody else that was maintaining such a box also). In
general travis has been great though.


On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Frederick Cheung <

Post by Frederick Cheung
And the fact that it's a (free) hosted service is a big plus if you don't
want to setup and maintain your own CI server. It also makes testing
against different ruby versions, gem versions very easy whereas that is
something you'd have to setup yourself with (e.g.) jenkins
Fred

Post by Kyle Rames
Thanks Geemus!
I figured that was the reason, but I didn't want to guess. I was just

asked if we were ever using hudson/jenkins and if so why did we switch.

Post by Kyle Rames
Looking at ruby-toolbox, travis is the most popular and that's what I

would start using if I were to start up a new ruby project.

Post by Kyle Rames
Kyle
Previously there was no CI, I just ran the tests locally on my own

machine. So we clearly needed something. Travis is something I (and other
contributors) had a good deal of experience with and didn't involve having
to do much additional setup or ongoing maintenance, so it seemed like a win
all around.

Post by Kyle Rames
What else would we use?
I was asked this morning why Fog used Travis CI for continuous

integration. I had assumed because it was the most populate CI system for
Rubyists, but I just wanted to make sure I had my facts straight.

Post by Kyle Rames
Why did Fog chose Travis? Did we ever use anything else? If so, why did

we switch?

Post by Kyle Rames
Thanks!
Kyle
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "ruby-fog" group.

Post by Kyle Rames
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "ruby-fog" group.

Post by Kyle Rames
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ruby-fog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Nick Silkey]

geemus --

I am the one who started the conversation with Kyle. :)

Another question I had was for approximately how long has fog been
leveraging Travis for CI?

Feedback and history much appreciated. Thanks.

-nick

On Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:41:42 AM UTC-5, geemus wrote:
Previously there was no CI, I just ran the tests locally on my own machine.
So we clearly needed something. Travis is something I (and other
contributors) had a good deal of experience with and didn't involve having
to do much additional setup or ongoing maintenance, so it seemed like a win
all around.


What else would we use?



On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kyle Rames <rac...-***@public.gmane.org <javascript:>>
wrote:

I was asked this morning why Fog used Travis CI for continuous integration.
I had assumed because it was the most populate CI system for Rubyists, but
I just wanted to make sure I had my facts straight.


Why did Fog chose Travis? Did we ever use anything else? If so, why did we
switch?


Thanks!


Kyle
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"ruby-fog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to ruby-fog+u...-/***@public.gmane.org <javascript:>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[geemus (Wesley Beary)]

For several months now, here is the commit from when we first started ~ 7
months ago (
https://github.com/fog/fog/commit/83e0142c61cd7680680f1127148532485e6216b2).

Post by Nick Silkey
geemus --
I am the one who started the conversation with Kyle. :)
Another question I had was for approximately how long has fog been
leveraging Travis for CI?
Feedback and history much appreciated. Thanks.
-nick
Previously there was no CI, I just ran the tests locally on my own
machine. So we clearly needed something. Travis is something I (and other
contributors) had a good deal of experience with and didn't involve having
to do much additional setup or ongoing maintenance, so it seemed like a win
all around.
What else would we use?
I was asked this morning why Fog used Travis CI for continuous
integration. I had assumed because it was the most populate CI system for
Rubyists, but I just wanted to make sure I had my facts straight.
Why did Fog chose Travis? Did we ever use anything else? If so, why did we
switch?
Thanks!
Kyle
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ruby-fog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ruby-fog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.