[ofiwg] replacing travis CI

[Hefty, Sean]

> > For a while now, Travis CI has been requesting that all projects
> > move from travis.org to travis.com.  It turns out that travis is
> > putting credit limits on open source projects, and re-defining open
> > source to exclude projects that have company paid employees
> > contributing to it.  The following blog provides a nice summary:
> >
> > https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2021/06/14/bye-bye-travis-ci/
> >
> > The short version is that travis no longer appears to be a viable CI
> > option for the libfabric project.
> 
> IMHO it is not a bad use of OFA funds to support the projects it
> operates.. <shurg>

Agreed, and I'll bring this up with OFA, but I also don't expect any resolution there for months.  In the meantime, we'll lose some coverage -- macOS, Clang build, and Coverity.  These have all been useful at finding issues other CI has missed.

> > There are some alternatives,
> > which are being explored, including github actions and circleCI.  If
> > anyone has any comments, please respond.
> 
> rdma-core has been using Azure Pipelines for the last few years and it
> has treated us well so far. Much, much more reliable than travis ever
> was.
> 
> IMHO for a C project the most important thing is that the CI be able
> to run project-specific docker containers - that was the biggest
> criteria when I looked at this a few years ago.
> 
> With dockerhub now restricting usage (due to CI abuse) a CI service
> that doesn't provide its own container registry is no longer "free".
> 
> We pay a small nomial Azure fee to host a private container registry
> and the CI runs its images out of this.

I'll look into Azure.  Who is 'we' in the we pay?  OFA?

OFA is supposed to have it's own testing cluster.  It would be nice if that could run this sort of CI.

- Sean