Donald Stufft, 20.04.2014 03:34:
On Apr 19, 2014, at 6:51 PM, David Wilson wrote:
Travis can work well, but the effort involved in maintaining it has, at least for me, been unjustifiably high: in total I've spent close to a man-week in the past 6 months trying various configurations, and fixing things up once a month, before resorting to what I have now. In all, I have probably spent 10x the time maintaining Travis as I have actually writing comprehensive tests. It cannot reasonably be expected that project maintainers should pay similarly, or ideally even need to be aware their package is undergoing testing someplace. My biggest gripe with Travis, though, is that they can and do remove things that break what for me seems trivial functionality. This is simply the nature of a one-size-fits-all service. From what I gather, they previously removed old Python releases from their base image to reduce its size.
I’ve not had anywhere near that type of experience trying to get anything setup on Travis.
I'm not an overly happy Travis user myself, but I have to concur that the maintenance hasn't been a burden at all for me, in neither of three Python projects that I let them test.
I'm also not sure a Python specific testing service would end up being successful. It's a lot of work to set up (snakebite?), and then to maintain and keep running, keep it safe and reliable, etc. Anyone who considers giving it a try should assume it to become a full time job for at least a couple of months, and only then take the decision.