Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 10, 2022. It is now read-only.

Migrate publishing from Travis/Bintray to GitHub-Actions/Sonatype #149

Closed
20 of 21 tasks
octonato opened this issue Apr 19, 2021 · 15 comments
Closed
20 of 21 tasks

Migrate publishing from Travis/Bintray to GitHub-Actions/Sonatype #149

octonato opened this issue Apr 19, 2021 · 15 comments

Comments

@octonato
Copy link
Member

octonato commented Apr 19, 2021

The minimal goal for each migration is that a project no longer publishes via Bintray. A project must publish by tag to Sonatype. Ideally, the migration of the CI build includes moving away from whatever CI it currently uses and adopts GitHub Actions.

Current decision is that we will only migrate when there is an immediate need, ie: just before a release. Also, to keep things small and avoid new issues we don't migrate everything to GitHub Actions but only the releasing part (publish to gustav, whitesource and publishing to sonatype).

the fastest way to achieve the minimum (gustav, whitesoiurce, publish to sonatype) is to copy this workflow, adjust it and remove any publish-related job from travis.

The following need migrating away from Bintray and are also affected by #150 (migration to GH Actions required to prevent dockerhub rate-limiting issues in Travis)

@ignasi35
Copy link

playframework/interplay (we probably can take the opportunity to retire this one)

I don't think we should pay the cost of that retirement now.

@ihostage
Copy link

ihostage commented Apr 19, 2021

@octonato
Copy link
Member Author

@ignasi35, I didn't check them all, but check this https://github.com/playframework/play-ws/blob/master/project/plugins.sbt#L4

Those project do use bintray, either directly or indirectly via interplay. If they are using interplay, I would prefer to step out and just use sbt-ci-release. That's better than having another interplay release just because of that.

@octonato
Copy link
Member Author

@ihostage, would you do the necessary for play-soap?

I can add the necessary keys to Travis.

@ignasi35
Copy link

@ignasi35, I didn't check them all, but check this https://github.com/playframework/play-ws/blob/master/project/plugins.sbt#L4

Those project do use bintray, either directly or indirectly via interplay. If they are using interplay, I would prefer to step out and just use sbt-ci-release.

Of course! 🤦🏼‍♂️

There are a handful of projects in the play ecosystem that (1) already moved away from interplay, and (2) used bintray as the staging environment before pushing to sonatype.

That's better than having another interplay release just because of that.

There's no need for another interplay release in any case since latest interplay 2.8.x and 3.0.x already moved away from bintray.

@ignasi35
Copy link

BTW, I think whatever effort we put in migrating the reports listed in the description of this issue it should include both master and stable branches!

@octonato
Copy link
Member Author

I'm wondering what could be a quick win strategy here. I think in general we want to move to GH Actions because of the many issues we encounter (and still encounter) with Travis.

A quick path for the bintray issue could be to only move the release to GH Actions for now.

I don't want to move everything to GH Action right now and I don't want to start configure Travis with the credentials for sbt-ci-release and a month later redo it for GH Actions.

In other projects, we the release.yml workflow only works in master after a PR merge or after tagging. It will then publish the artifacts (snapshots or release), run whitesource and then publish docs to gustav.

Bottom line is, we can use GH Actions for the release and Travis for the PR tests.

@ihostage
Copy link

@ihostage, would you do the necessary for play-soap?
I can add the necessary keys to Travis.

@octonato Yes, of course. I created a separate issue for Play SOAP (playframework/play-soap#246) and do that when will find time for that.

@ignasi35
Copy link

I'm wondering what could be a quick win strategy here.

TBQH, I think the best option is to not migrate anything and just migrate if/when required. Something as simple as migrating to GH Actions is already surfacing issues. See the ongoing efforts for lagom and akka-grpc.

@octonato
Copy link
Member Author

@ignasi35, I updated the description with the conclusion of our discussion.

I will continue with the akka-management anyway because it's suffering from dockerhub rate limiting. All the other projects follow your suggestion to only do when needed.

@ihostage, that doesn't include play-soap. It's up to you when you want to migrate it. Let me know when I need to generate a gpg key for publishing and setup the secrets for you.

@ignasi35
Copy link

@octonato we should put akka-persistence-cassandra (and probably all other persistence plugins) on the list to migrate to GH since they use docker on the CI.

@octonato
Copy link
Member Author

we should put akka-persistence-cassandra (and probably all other persistence plugins) on the list to migrate to GH since they use docker on the CI.

Ok, I will change the description. First a list of ASAP must have because of Docker. Those a GH Action and Sonatype.

Then the list of TODOs when we need/time allow.

@octonato octonato changed the title Publishing directly to Sonatype GitHub Actions and Sonatype Publishing Apr 19, 2021
@mkurz
Copy link

mkurz commented Apr 20, 2021

Please add play-mailer to the list:

@ignasi35 ignasi35 changed the title GitHub Actions and Sonatype Publishing Migrate publishing from Travis/Bintray to GitHub-Actions/Sonatype Apr 20, 2021
@ignasi35
Copy link

I have split this issue in two so #149 stays focused on migrating away from Bintray.

#150, OTOH, focuses on migrating away from Travis, specially those jobs that need docker to run.

@ennru
Copy link
Member

ennru commented Mar 14, 2022

We're good here.

@ennru ennru closed this as completed Mar 14, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants