# Rust CI / release infrastructure changes

**URL:** <https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/rust-ci-release-infrastructure-changes/4489>\
**Category:** Uncategorized\
**Created:** [December 22, 2016, 3:08am UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/rust-ci-release-infrastructure-changes/4489 "2016-12-22T03:08:42Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![brson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/internals.rust-lang.org/brson/32/5197_2.png) [@brson](https://internals.rust-lang.org/u/brson)\
**Post date:** [December 23, 2016, 1:16am UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/rust-ci-release-infrastructure-changes/4489/6 "2016-12-23T01:16:16Z")

</div>

> [@notriddle](#):
>
> Just curious, is there some reason why Travis and AppVeyor are chosen over TaskCluster?

Here are some reasons for not picking TaskCluster for our CI:

- TaskCluster is not very accessible to non-Mozillians, and one of our main goals is to have open infrastructure that others can contribute to. It is not practical to run one's own TaskCluster instance.
- Travis and AppVeyor are well-known to open source contributors, so they can more easily contribute.
- TaskCluster is a complex system that is managed by another team who are mostly beholden to Firefox, while Travis and AppVeyor are relied on by diverse customers
- I've not enjoyed writing TaskCluster scripts in JavaScript in the past, though maybe it has other bindings that I would feel more comfortable with

There may be a role for TaskCluster in the release process yet, motivated by Firefox releng's work on creating secure workflows in TaskCluster.

---

_[View the full topic](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/rust-ci-release-infrastructure-changes/4489)._