Standardize the .travis.yml files? about fxa HOT 7 CLOSED

So, I guess the main questions are:

1. Do we want to be consistent with testing all repos on Node 0.10, 0.12, and "iojs" (latest, I don't think we care about io.js 1.x at this point)?
2. Do we want to install the generic npm@2 in each repo?
3. Make sure each repo has an explicit sudo: false or sudo: true? I know there is http://docs.travis-ci.com/user/workers/container-based-infrastructure/#Routing-your-build-to-container-based-infrastructure but it gets a bit murky around "For repos we recognize on or after 2015-01-01", and I'm too lazy to actually try and determine when a repo was set up and recognized by Travis for all the repos).
4. Do we want to add .travis.yml files for any of the 7 repos above that are missing .travis.yml files?
5. Do we want to add node_modules dependency caching to any other repos (given that we have occasional problems with them being pretty aggressively cached and need to manually flush caches when the package.json deps change).

from fxa.

Thanks @pdehaan, consistency++!

My thoughts:

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Meh
4. Yes, except script-helper and fxa-deployment which are dead and we should probably just delete
5. Sure, we should give it shot

from fxa.

Largely, the same as @rfk, but a couple of notes:

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes. I prefer the explicit setting for some reason.
4. Yes, but https://github.com/mozilla/fxa-basket-proxy is an empty repo? And not sure what travis would do with fxa-dev.
5. Three hards problems. Cache invalidation, and naming things.

from fxa.

OK, sounds like we have some form of agreement. I'll assign to myself and start filing some travis.yml PRs in the respective repos where they make sense.

Thanks.

from fxa.

Sounds good, some repos will fail in latest node and do not support running without sudo but good idea!

from fxa.

@pdehaan should we support v0.10 and v4? skip everything else?

from fxa.

@vladikoff shrug.

I keep meaning to get around to this for all of the fxa-* repos, but I was mainly thinking of saying we should support "0.10", "0.12" and "stable" (aka v4), and we currently don't care if Node 4 fails for now. I think there will still be a handful of modules that aren't updated for Node 4 yet (but I think node-sass may have just been updated yesterday). But it'd be nice to know if our stuff even works on the latest stable release.

from fxa.