We can do it in Travis’ afaik. We should replace it. So +1.
B. > On 16 Mar 2017, at 16:48, Jeremiah Lowin <[email protected]> wrote: > > This may be an unpopular opinion, but most Airflow PRs have a little red > "x" next to them not because they have failing unit tests, but because the > Landscape check has decided they introduce bad code. > > Unfortunately Landscape is often wrong -- here it is telling me my latest > PR introduced no less than 30 errors... in files I didn't touch! > https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2157 (however, it gives me > credit for fixing 23 errors in those same files, so I've got that going for > me... which is nice.) > > The upshot is that Github's "health" indicator can be swayed by minor or > erroneous issues, and therefore it serves little purpose other than making > it look like every PR is bad. This creates committer fatigue, since every > PR needs to be parsed to see if it actually is OK or not. > > Don't get me wrong, I'm all for proper style and on occasion Landscape has > pointed out problems that I've gone and fixed. But on the whole, I believe > that having it as part of our red / green PR evaluation -- equal to and > often superseding unit tests -- is harmful. I'd much rather be able to scan > the PR list and know unequivocally that "green" indicates ready to merge. > > J
