[Numpy-discussion] PowerPC testing servers
matthew.brett at gmail.com
Wed Feb 15 14:58:00 EST 2017
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com>
>> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hey,
>> >> A recent post to the wheel-builders mailing list pointed out some
>> >> links to places providing free PowerPC hosting for open source
>> >> projects, if they agree to a submitted request:
>> >> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/wheel-builders/2017-February/000257.html
>> >> It would be good to get some testing going on these architectures.
>> >> Shall we apply for hosting, as the numpy organization?
>> > Those are bare VMs it seems. Remembering the Buildbot and Mailman
>> > horrors, I
>> > think we should be very reluctant to taking responsibility for
>> > maintaining
>> > CI on anything that's not hosted and can be controlled with a simple
>> > config
>> > file in our repo.
>> Not sure what you mean about mailman - maybe the Enthought servers we
>> didn't have access to?
> We did have access (for most of the time), it's just that no one is
> interested in putting in lots of hours on sysadmin duties.
>> For buildbot, I've been maintaining about 12
>> crappy old machines for about 7 years now  - I'm happy to do the
>> same job for a couple of properly hosted PPC machines.
> That's awesome persistence. The NumPy and SciPy buildbots certainly weren't
> maintained like that, half of them were offline or broken for long periods
Right - they do need persistence, and to have someone who takes
responsibility for them.
>> At least we'd
>> have some way of testing for these machines, if we get stuck - even if
>> that involved spinning up a VM and installing the stuff we needed from
>> the command line.
> I do see the value of testing on more platforms of course. It's just about
> logistics/responsibilities. If you're saying that you'll do the maintenance,
> and want to apply for resources using the NumPy name, that's much better I
> think then making "the numpy devs" collectively responsible.
Yes, exactly. I'm happy to take responsibility for them, I just
wanted to make sure that numpy devs could get at them if I'm not
around for some reason.
More information about the NumPy-Discussion