Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> I think it is far more important to do that on the release buildbot. The
> patchbot is still an optional thing, which reviewers are free to ignore.
Yes, but patch- and buildbots essentially do the same, with different
configurations though.
To me it seems this is not well-
Simon King wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 2016-09-12, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
>> This happened to me. My patch for a ticket passed the doctesting by a
>> patchbot A but afterward failed by another patchbot B. The reason was that
>> the patchbot B has an optional package installed, and hence ran the
>> optiona
>
> Note that we'd have to do both, testing with *and* without (each)
> optional package.
Obviously we cannot test for all possible combinations of packages.
But I think that every patch must be tested against at least one vanilla
Sage and one full-featured Sage with "all" optional package i
Hi!
On 2016-09-12, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> This happened to me. My patch for a ticket passed the doctesting by a
> patchbot A but afterward failed by another patchbot B. The reason was that
> the patchbot B has an optional package installed, and hence ran the
> optional doctests for the installed
Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> This happened to me. My patch for a ticket passed the doctesting by a
> patchbot A but afterward failed by another patchbot B. The reason was
> that the patchbot B has an optional package installed, and hence ran the
> optional doctests for the installed package, and my patch f
