Replace Travis CI with GitHub Actions

[hugovk]

Travis CI has a new pricing model which places limits on open source.

• https://blog.travis-ci.com/2020-11-02-travis-ci-new-billing
• https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2020/travis-cis-new-pricing-plan-threw-wrench-my-open-source-works

Many projects are moving to GitHub Actions instead, including Jazzband projects: jazzband/help#206

Tests are already run on GHA, this PR removes the Travis CI config and adds a deploy workflow. This is based on the one we already got working in https://github.com/jazzband/prettytable. The release process will be the same.

TODO:

• @jezdez to add JAZZBAND_RELEASE_KEY to the repo secrets.
• @jezdez Remove "continuous-integration/travis-ci Expected — Waiting for status to be reported" from branch protection rules.

Changelog-friendly one-liner: Replace Travis CI with GitHub Actions

Contributor checklist

• Provided the tests for the changes.
• Gave a clear one-line description in the PR (that the maintainers can add to CHANGELOG.md on release).
• Assign the PR to an existing or new milestone for the target version (following Semantic Versioning).

[atugushev]

Thank you @hugovk! You are right on time! 🙏

uses: deadsnakes/action@v2.0.1

FYI it fixes 3.9-dev job.

[atugushev]

@jezdez could you please also remove the "required" status check from Travis CI?

[jezdez]

I've added the JAZZBAND_RELEASE_KEY secret.

[jezdez]

@jezdez could you please also remove the "required" status check from Travis CI?

Done. I've left appveyor though.

@davidovich @vphilippon @atugushev There is a large number of test envs on GitHub actions, should any be required to pass first before a merge is happening?

[jezdez]

BTW, GitHub Actions supports Windows as well, do we want to get rid of Appveyor as well?

[atugushev]

Done. I've left appveyor though.

@jezdez Thanks! I think appveyor also is a candidate to remove from CI (as well as "required" status check).

There is a large number of test envs on GitHub actions, should any be required to pass first before a merge is happening?

I would say:

• CI / Ubuntu / 3.8 / latest
• CI / Windows / 3.8 / latest
• CI / macOS / 3.8 / latest

[jezdez]

Done. I've left appveyor though.

@jezdez Thanks! I think appveyor also is a candidate to remove from CI (and so required status check).

Okay, I'd support that. I see there are already Windows runs set-up. Can I just disable AppVeyor? Let's at least open an issue to track this if non of the other project leads agree to do that. There is a pretty old issue about the lack of access for Jazzband members as well.

There is a large number of test envs on GitHub actions, should any be required to pass first before a merge is happening?

I would say:

* CI / Ubuntu / 3.8 / latest

* CI / Windows / 3.8 / latest

* CI / macOS / 3.8 / latest

Done.

[atugushev]

Can I just disable AppVeyor? Let's at least open an issue to track this if non of the other project leads agree to do that. There is a pretty old issue about the lack of access for Jazzband members as well.

Yeah, let's disable it first.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1229 (056f415) into master (61eb515) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1229   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.50%   99.50%           
=======================================
  Files          36       36           
  Lines        2855     2855           
  Branches      332      332           
=======================================
  Hits         2841     2841           
  Misses          8        8           
  Partials        6        6           

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 61eb515...056f415. Read the comment docs.

[atugushev]

LGTM 👍

[atugushev]

Thanks @hugovk and @jezdez!