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 like the ease to setup the CI for automating the deployments in the different applications

probably the cost if you can start to use it and don't have an idea of estimate cost

It worked really nicely until about 6 months ago !
The previous unlimited open-source plan was generous, and a huge selling point.

Service has been less than ideal since the decision to move OSS projects travis-ci.org. We have felt this throttling of resources, and it was an indication that things were about tho change for the worse.

I was surprised to find that from one day to the next my CI builds weren't being run anymore.
Sure enough, you had a banner announcing the change from travis-ci.org to .com , but I didn't understand it would require changes on my side, and I didn't receive an email letting me know that my CI builds would just stop if I didn't manage it. I'll admit my fault in not checking more thoroughly.

Moving from .org to .com was not as easy as I would have liked (Why do I need to sign up for a beta? Why is it in beta, and why do you need more decisions from me that I don't have all the information to decide?), but I eventually got there.

It works. Which is always a good thing. Other tools exist, but Travis always seemed the simplest to implement with GitHub.

Seemingly no reason to change things but reworking the domain. Not exactly sure what the whole point was.

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.

It does the job with reliability. I have no reason to change.

The UI has not evolved for years I think. I'm constantly doing the same 10 clicks to do the same things everyday, that I could have done in 1-click with a better UI. There are no insights, no "nice to have".
It may work but I have absolutely no attachment to the product and could change without missing anything.
In fact, I'll probably rationalize the number of tools we have by switching to Heroku CI or Github Actions, since they do as much as Travis I have no need for another tool.

TravisCI did a great job for many years, across different CI/CD tools, by providing a rich feature set and well-documented functionality.

Unfortunately, TravisCI is not very reliable. It's having constant downtimes for many months. TravisCI announced the deployment API v2 for a long time ago, but never released the stable version. On the other hand, after the recent acquisition of Idera, many talented developers have left the company. Therefore their development speed and shipment of the important features seem to be delayed.

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.

For some reason Travis CI seems like the Godfather of CI even though it popped up at the same time as the others. I think this is because they aggressively had a bot add testing to open source projects, and it seemed to work.

For the price even though Travis CI is great its a little expensive.

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!

I like the ease of deployments especially with multi-step-deploys of websites where the backend and frontend should be in sync.

Only thing I need to complain is the pricing. For a small design and development agency like us the price of the "concurrent job"-based plan is way too expensive while our current credit-based plan (which i'm happy that this exist) is very often exceeded due to the nature of our deployments.

I like that I can see the live status from GitHub and that the UI is very simple. I can easily find everything. The console output is colorized (it's not in other CI software I've used).

Sometimes parts of log output is collapsed, which has hidden an error for me before. It took a while, but my team figured it out.

Back when I started, the onboarding was very straightforward, as long as you used GitHub. Fairly reliable for my low-profile usage. Simple and direct user interface.

It grew worse when the company behind Travis CI got sold; downtimes became more frequent, builder image upgrades didn't really get up to speed - but the worst was to leave an extremely short runway to the free tier for open source users with no prior announcement. That's not so much about the software, it's about the company. Free tier or not, in CI segment you just can't afford such things.

Its easy to use by default in new Ember web apps.

All configuration goes in a single monolithic travis.yml file, and the syntax of this file is very mysterious. Understanding what a particular configuration does is difficult, and its difficult to figure out how to satisfy new requirements.

In contrast, github actions allow for the separate configuration of many different workflows, and offer comparatively much better documentation.

We mostly continue to use travis because we've already figured out how to configure it for our basic needs with a few projects, and our company has already purchased a plan. Its difficult to switch to another system, largely due to company politics.

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

It's expensive in comparison to other solutions

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.

At first Travis CI was an easy-to-use way to run the test suite of our Ruby On Rails app when branches were pushed to GitHub. Then it locked me out of accessing the build results and just does not work any more.

Github integration broke so I can no longer access the service, only 1 developer on my team can access it.

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.

Travis integrates with github, and slack.

Sometimes the scripting of yaml files is agonizing.

Remove the manual work in running tests before merging code.
Also it's scalable to multiple branches and developers.
And it give viability on how the build is broken if any issues arise.

1. A bit slow comparing to running the tests on local machine.
2. Have a verbose limitation of 4MB.

Works and integrates seemlessly. Love it.

Pricing model has changed. I understand. We are open source and non-profit so moving away.

I love the ease of integration with CI workflow for github and heroku

Slow to pick up hooks from builds on occasion

I found that it's easy to get started with travis-ci

Advanced feature are not documented well (or may be I don't find it easily)

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.

Default concurrency and yaml based configuration.
Ease of integration with github and other similar systems.
Vast support of platforms and languages built-in.

A native slack notification system would be nice :)
Also supporting new Xcode versions earlier would be a plus.