Re: Travis and AppVeyor continuous integration [Re: feature/master/ci]

On 08/29/20 09:10, Chapman Flack wrote:
> Thomas, if their current permission requests, when configured as a
> GitHub App, are as Kartik describes, and can be limited to the PL/Java
> repo only, would that answer your concerns (even if not perfectly,
> perhaps acceptably)?
>
> It seems to me also that such concerns can have a "duration" dimension:
> if even their more limited, app-based, permissions are not entirely
> satisfactory, perhaps they would be tolerable for a limited period
> (a calendar quarter, perhaps) to immediately reap the benefits of
> Kartik's work while affording time to explore migrating the scripts
> to Github Actions without a rush?

Not having heard back from Thomas yet, I propose the following:

I will merge PR #289. This will bring the current, working Travis and
AppVeyor configurations into the git history. No CI will happen, of course,
before the corresponding apps are set up.

If Thomas is immovably opposed to setting up the apps, even with their
more limited permissions, for one repository only, perhaps for a limited
period, then the working Travis and AppVeyor configurations will be in
the history anyway, and can serve as starting points for GitHub Actions
workflows to be developed as time permits.

In any case, Kartik, once I have merged #289, you will be able to rebase
feature/master/pgxs over master as feature/master/pgxs-2 and make a new
pull request to supersede #291.

This should happen after the problem you just noticed in
getPgConfigPropertyAsList has been fixed (and a unit test added to
keep it fixed), and after adding -Dpljava.libjvmdefault on the mvn
build commands and removing pljava.libjvm_location from the jshell
test scripts, to confirm that the value gets correctly compiled in.
(The tests, of course, will not run in the main repo. but will still
run in yours.)

Regards,
-Chap