On Fri, May 18, 2018, 21:32 Nick Coghlan, <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18 May 2018 at 02:44, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
I'll also not quite sure why this is different than the credits we get from e.g. Heroku/Salesforce for the bots or AWS for PyPI? I get the worry of relying on a company that's too big to care if they upset us, but we already do rely on such companies so if this is to be a new policy then we have some de-tangling to do.

Note that those relationships are generally getting formalised as PSF in-kind sponsorships, so that they're not completely dependent on personal relationships with folks that work there, and so there's likely to be some prior warning if credits are being withdrawn and the Infrastructure team needs to make alternate service hosting arrangements (see https://www.python.org/psf/sponsorship/sponsors/ - while that listing doesn't separate out cash sponsorships from in-kind service donations, it's possible to make a reasonably informed guess as to which is which).

FWIW, switching from a hybrid Travis/Appveyor setup to a hybrid Travis/VSTS setup seems like it would be a reasonable way to go to me, since we have existing sponsorship arrangements in place with both MS and Travis CI,

I'm not sure how formal our Travis arrangement is as that came about that is to Donald's personal connections there which have left the company. (E.g. I emailed support to get a sprint bump to not have cryptography cripple us this year and I got the impression they didn't know what I was talking about.)

but no formal relationship with the Appveyor folks that I'm aware of (I believe we're just using their regular free tier).

Correct. We're just like any other project to them.



Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan@gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia