Brett Cannon just made AppVeyor required again on 2.7, 3.6, 3.7 and master ;-)
Victor
2018-06-04 21:38 GMT+01:00 Victor Stinner :
> I have very good news from AppVeyor:
>
> * AppVeyor runs again jobs on pull requests: it's back!
> * Issue with quotas: it was a disk issue, it was on their side and
I have very good news from AppVeyor:
* AppVeyor runs again jobs on pull requests: it's back!
* Issue with quotas: it was a disk issue, it was on their side and
it's now fixed.
* AppVeyor donate us additional parallel job to the python account!
Moreover:
* They proposed us to extend the timeout t
bject: Re: [python-committers] Turning off AppVeyor as required
By the way, Python 2.7 doesn't have AppVeyor nor VSTS?
Is there a plan to add VSTS to Python 2.7?
Victor
2018-06-04 18:46 GMT+02:00 Steve Dower :
> On 04Jun2018 0932, Victor Stinner wrote:
>>
>> 2018-06-04 18:
By the way, Python 2.7 doesn't have AppVeyor nor VSTS?
Is there a plan to add VSTS to Python 2.7?
Victor
2018-06-04 18:46 GMT+02:00 Steve Dower :
> On 04Jun2018 0932, Victor Stinner wrote:
>>
>> 2018-06-04 18:18 GMT+02:00 Brett Cannon :
>>>
>>> I'm currently not in the mood to argue about VSTS'
On 04Jun2018 0932, Victor Stinner wrote:
2018-06-04 18:18 GMT+02:00 Brett Cannon :
I'm currently not in the mood to argue about VSTS' stability so I don't feel
comfortable flipping that on as a requirement quite yet.
I don't suggest to make it mandatory right now.
I will try to keep on eye on
2018-06-04 18:18 GMT+02:00 Brett Cannon :
> I'm currently not in the mood to argue about VSTS' stability so I don't feel
> comfortable flipping that on as a requirement quite yet.
I don't suggest to make it mandatory right now.
I will try to keep on eye on VSTS ;-)
Victor
___
>
> miss-islington currently ignores VSTS status
No it does not yet ignore VSTS status. If VSTS status failed, it will not
automerge.
Mariatta
ᐧ
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/p
I'm currently not in the mood to argue about VSTS' stability so I don't
feel comfortable flipping that on as a requirement quite yet.
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 at 08:33 Victor Stinner wrote:
> Hum. For backports, should we stop to approve PRs in advance?
> miss-islington currently ignores VSTS status a
Hum. For backports, should we stop to approve PRs in advance?
miss-islington currently ignores VSTS status and so may merge a
backport even if VSTS Windows fails.
Victor
2018-06-04 17:02 GMT+02:00 Brett Cannon :
> Victor noticed that AppVeyor stopped building about 19 hours ago, leading to
> it b
Victor noticed that AppVeyor stopped building about 19 hours ago, leading
to it blocking all open PRs. I have gone ahead and switched off requiring
AppVeyor for now, so please pay attention to at least the Windows VSTS
status check to make sure you're not breaking Windows by accident.
_
10 matches
Mail list logo