OK, clearly I worry too much. :-)

Faster tests are certainly most welcome, and I am super grateful for all the work that Steve and Brett have put into this.

--Guido

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Carol Willing <willingc@willingconsulting.com> wrote:
Hi all,

On May 17, 2018, at 11:29 AM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:



On Thu, 17 May 2018 at 12:57 Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:

Hi Brett,

On Thu, 17 May 2018 10:54:27 -0400
Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> 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.

Actually, depending on how you measure, VSTS is older than Travis. :) So originally there was TFS which was an on-premise thing from MS released in 2005 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Foundation_Server). The cloud-hosted version is VSTS and that was released in 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Visual_Studio#Team_Services). Travis it turns out was founded in 2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_CI).

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
guarantee).

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.



_______________________________________________
core-workflow mailing list -- core-workflow@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to core-workflow-leave@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/core-workflow.python.org/
This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct


_______________________________________________
core-workflow mailing list -- core-workflow@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to core-workflow-leave@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/core-workflow.python.org/
This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct




--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)