Migrate CI to GitHub Actions?

[jacobtomlinson]

Due to changes in the Travis CI billing, the Dask org is migrating Travis CI to GitHub Actions.

This repo appears to use Azure Pipelines. As we are putting in the effort to migrate many projects to GitHub Actions does it make sense to standardise here?

See dask/community#107 for more details.

[hayesgb]

@jacobtomlinson -- I don't have a strong opinion about GH actions vs Azure Pipelines. Is there a straightforward migration path? I've never used GH actions, but definitely agree that standardizing across the project would be preferred.

[jacobtomlinson]

Thanks for getting back to this @hayesgb.

I also do not have a strong opinion. They are actually similar services, even the configuration files are very similar. My only point in favour of migrating is having consistency accross projects makes it easier for other to dive in. But it isn't an especially large barrier either.

Looking at the piplines config for this project it mostly seems to be bash scrips running on Ubuntu, which is trivial to migrate. The only thing that seems to be Azure Pipelines specific is the coverage steps. Is this displayed in Azure Pipelines somewhere and is this valuable to the project? If so we would need to migrate to codecov or similar.

[efiop]

Fixed by #408