On Thu, 17 May 2018 10:54:27 -0400
Brett Cannon <email@example.com> wrote:
> Since both Paul Moore and Antoine Pitrou started to ask questions about a
> side comment I made about VSTS, I might as well start a discussion (Steve
> has also *just* emailed python-committers about this topic).
The main thing that worries me is that VSTS (the service, perhaps not
the basic infrastructure) is a very new thing and we don't have any
visibility over its continuity, its capacity, its robustness, etc.
And if it makes you feel any better, all of MS runs on VSTS, e.g. Windows, Visual Studio, Office, etc. So it's only "new" from the perspective of anonymous access and thus being usable for open source projects in general.
Travis-CI and AppVeyor, with all their defaults, have been in this
space for some time, have a lot of existing customers and we can expect
some amount of stability in the future (of course, there's no
So I'd like it if didn't ditch *all* of the non-VSTS CI. Not for now
anyway, we can of course revisit the decision in 2 years :-)
If that's how people end up feeling in general then that's fine and we can leave Travis and/or AppVeyor in place and simply not make them required so they don't hold us up if VSTS turns out to run faster.
I had a long discussion with Steve at PyCon about VSTS. The benefits seem promising.
Perhaps a reasonable step forward is to run Travis, AppVeyor, and VSTS as required for 3 months or 6 months. This would give everyone a view into using VSTS.
After the initial period, we could then revisit what makes sense in the longer term. Which could be to continue using and requiring all; use all but perhaps relax the requirement for passing; or to choose one preferred combination of tools.