On Jun 3, 2018, at 22:30, Steve Dower wrote:
> We probably have enough data on the VSTS builds by now to see whether they
> are comparable/faster than AppVeyor. Obviously the idea of doing that work
> was to be able to migrate builds if it made sense, and if we decide not to
> then they get rip
We probably have enough data on the VSTS builds by now to see whether they are
comparable/faster than AppVeyor. Obviously the idea of doing that work was to
be able to migrate builds if it made sense, and if we decide not to then they
get ripped out (non-binding PR checks are confusing IMHO, par
I reported two issues:
"AppVeyor builds interrupted before tests complete"
https://bugs.python.org/issue33764
"AppVeyor didn't start on my PR 7365"
https://bugs.python.org/issue33765
Victor
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.or
2018-06-03 3:07 GMT+02:00 Guido van Rossum :
> The best course of action seems to be to take measures to acquire new
> committers (and contributors), not to try and reactivate old inactive
> committers.
My advice is to spend more time on mentoring and less time to write
code yourself. In my experi
Hi,
Is it just me or AppVeyor became slower than it was a few months ago?
First of all, for AppVeyor, *all* builds are in the same queue and we
are only allowed to run one job in parallel. Currently, AppVeyor is
the obvious bottleneck of our workflow. It directly limits the number
of commits that
2018-06-03 22:23 GMT+02:00 Terry Reedy :
> Exhibit 1. For at least a couple of weeksin may, faults in the asyncio test
> (and another) caused the asyncio test to randomly fail about half the time.
> With one retest, each CI bot failed about 1/4 the time. At least one bot of
> the two bots failed a
[Victor Stinner ]
> ...
> In short, the feature commit + fix the commit became a single commit :-)
>
I'd give a lot of weight to that - if I cared about counting commits at
all, which I don't ;-)
I just recently learned enough about git and github to get my feet wet
again. My first patch was to
2018-06-03 10:27 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou :
> That said, it is true that core development activity continues to
> shrink, at least according to this particular metric:
> https://github.com/python/cpython/graphs/contributors
I also noticed a very significant drop in the number of commits in the
mas
Hi Terry,
I have an email going out to AppVeyor with you CCed, we'll see what
kind of response we get (probably tomorrow). In the meantime, I'll
look into disabling largefile tests, or test_mmap specifically on
AppVeyor to see whether that helps the situation.
On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Ter
When we used hg, core dev committers could actually commit to the
repository when they judged it appropriate. When we moved to github,
Brett, with whoever's approval, decided that we should no longer be
trusted to make commits without approval of a couple of mindless robots.
However, the prem
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 at 18:08 Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Sounds to me like these are probably just past committers who are no
> longer active for whatever personal reasons, and took no action when we
> moved to GitHub. We basically never remove the commit bit from anyone
> except by request, and I o
Le 03/06/2018 à 12:36, Berker Peksağ a écrit :
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> That said, it is true that core development activity continues to
>> shrink, at least according to this particular metric:
>> https://github.com/python/cpython/graphs/contributors
>
> I thi
On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> That said, it is true that core development activity continues to
> shrink, at least according to this particular metric:
> https://github.com/python/cpython/graphs/contributors
I think the pre-GitHub stats includes merge commits too:
That's not the symptom of a « 50% reduction in activity ». 10 years
ago, it was already the case that many core developers were inactive
(not necessarily the same as today!).
That said, it is true that core development activity continues to
shrink, at least according to this particular metric:
h
On 3 June 2018 at 12:49, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 at 14:58 Ezio Melotti wrote:
>
> Even if the volunteers don't materialize (and I dematerialize), we
>> still have to determine if the cost of keep using b.p.o as is, is
>> greater than the cost of moving everything to a new syst
15 matches
Mail list logo
