Travis CI Reviews

Travis does a few things really well:
1. Documentation - the documentation is extensive and complete, and one never has the feeling that there are "hidden features" that only the power users know about.
2. Speed - waiting for more than a few seconds for a build to start is extremely rare.
3. Deploy integrations - builds can be deployed to a set of services easily. This is probably the easiest way to set up continuous deployment if you're on a tight budget.

The build environment can be somewhat restrictive, forcing one to choose language-specific base images and not giving access to the underlying VM.

I really like Travis CI, creating .travis.yml files is easy enough & I love the interface for seeing my build progress. That said I'll be moving off of this platform very shortly.

The cost is insane - Azure DevOps offers pipelines for free, my AWS sites (5 of them) cost less to host than my Travis CI subscription, AWS has a DevOps implementation that is about $15/mo - even if Travis CI was at $20-$25/mo I would consider it as a solution.

Generally very reliable, customizable, extensible. Easy to debug. Is a workhorse.

Sometimes you'll get builds that won't debug, or builds stuck in the queue forever. This is generally because of some piece of travis infrastructure that has suddenly stopped, but there are no notifications, nor status indications that anything is wrong. Customer service can take the better part of a week to respond, or not at all.

Travis is the only ci tool that have VT-x enabled!
It's also well known, simple to use.

Paid compared to github action. At least it could be cool to have come montlhy free credits, for just a few to maintain some OSS project in RUN mode.
Not so configurable: I can't come with my own VM ISO so I'm forced to download all prerequisite package every time for each builds: most of my credits go there...
As I'm part of multiple orgs, it's hard to know which credits are spent where. Also, the authorization mecanism is not that clear: I don't know exactly what travis sees from my github infos.

Travis CI is the go-to continuous integration tool for open source projects thanks to its tight integration with Github. It provides a great set of tools on the cloud for integrating existing and new Github projects, configuring their build parameters and running builds based on various Github events such as the opening of pull requests which gives an unprecedented level of control to project leads on how code is merged in to projects.

Travis is a bit complex to integrate with version control platforms other than Github. Configuration to make it work with other platforms such as private GitLab servers can be tricky.

Travis CI is easy to use, it has a nice and easy user interface that gets you started quickly.
Travis CI is well documented which makes onboarding easy.
Some of my associates thought that when you have private repositories, you have to pay to use it. I have been using it with my private repositories. If before you had to pay, now things have changed. It would be nice to help support the product though so that development can go on. The servers also require funds to run.

Everything is perfect as per now. I have not come across any issues.

Travis CI can be easily connected to a GitHub repository, making it easy to automate builds and deployments and guarantee the quality of the code with tests. It also has a big community that helps troubleshoot any issue.

Travis CI does not offer dedicated build environments for the builds, which means that the builds are impacted by other builds running on the same shared infrastructure.

Been using Travis-CI for about 8 years now, and it's always reliably hosted my OSS projects.

Now with new ownership we've been seeing more downtime. Hope they can keep it afloat!

It's easy to use and configure and also a nice user experience.

It's expensive in comparison to other solutions

I like that it gives a pride option :D
checking previous builds, who issues them and if the failed/passed is very nice.
for the most part is is smooth and just does its job.

finding out why a build failed is sometimes very annoying.
scrolling a huge page of logs is not smooth (and maybe some better segmenting options there could be useful)
we have a weekly recurring job that fails for linting reasons (but we still need it to run to get sonarQube coverage, idk if this is on us for bad implementation) but then who ever deployed last they get an email saying that the build failed. and we can only opt in or out from the whole thing and not just that type of builds.

Travis CI is great when it works. I can develop, pass my local tests, then push to github, etc and Travis CI will make sure that my tests pass on a variety of different virtual machines. That is great.

I also like the rainbow flags.

I am perpetually confused when things break. On the good side there is fairly extensive documentation. However, a lot of times it is still chewing gum and duct tape. Big sticking point is interacting with services like coverage and code quality tools.

I also never quite figured out what the deal was when they switched from Travis.org for open source accounts to travis.com. The transition was super janky, and I still have projects that I think are in the old system, despite trying to bulk transfer all of them.

I loved integrating Travis into our workflow in Slack. We received notifications from Travis when there are failures in unit tests during the run of our CI pipeline. It appears for us to see and acknowledge. It’s little things like this that keep the team updated in an agile environment.

Like all CI/CD tools configurations are painful. It is made easy with lots of documentation but once it’s setup it runs and runs well.

This tool is best for mobile app automation. It supports native iOS, Android and other cross-platform like flutter.

More number of builds are not supporter for a free/indie account.

It does exactly what I need, and gets out of the way.

I can't think of anything I'd improve. Perhaps a regular install of Python 3.8 and 3.9 without the matrix thing?

- Comprehensive documentation for almost all popular languages and deployment environments
- Built-in plugins to cloud providers such as AWS, Google Cloud and Azure
- Free for all open-source projects
- Fairly easy to use and configure for almost all CI/CD scenarios.

- It can be tricky to integrate with other online repositories other than GitHub such as Bitbucket.
- You need to pay to support private builds.

The set up is very simple and easy. Free for OSS

There is nothing pretty much. The boot up time for the virtual machine could be improved.

The free version have a good result and usability

Somtimes it's hard to configure the test suite

Very easy to set up, and out of the box gives me a lot of control over my deployments.

It's more expensive compared to competing tools for smaller companies.

The fact running tasks in parallel is extremely easy.

The interface is terribly slow and the search does not work well.