On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Ondřej Čertík <[email protected]> wrote: > Do you use anything else besides Travis CI?
Yes, we use both Shining Panda and Travis CI: https://jenkins.shiningpanda.com/ipython/ http://travis-ci.org/#!/ipython/ipython The SP setup is more complete, including Mac and Windows bots. > I donated money to them and they enabled pull request > testing for SymPy and it's invaluable. We also use > our custom sympy-bot (https://github.com/sympy/sympy-bot) to test pull > request, but now > when Travis can do that, we might just use that. We have a version of that: after Aaron Meurer gave us an invaluable and detailed report on how you guys used it, Thomas Kluyver built for us our new test_pr script: https://github.com/ipython/ipython/blob/master/tools/test_pr.py which we regularly use now in most PRs, e.g.: https://github.com/ipython/ipython/pull/2015#issuecomment-6566387 It has proven to be *extremely* useful. This is some of the infrastructure that I hope we'll gradually start using across all the projects (the topic of some of the threads in the numfocus list). In IPython, our ability to rapidly absorb code has improved tremendously in part thanks to the smooth workflow these tools give us; just in the month of June we've merged 116 PRs totaling over 400 commits: (master)dreamweaver[ipython]> git log --oneline --since 2012-06-01 | grep "Merge pull request" | wc -l 116 (master)dreamweaver[ipython]> git log --oneline --since 2012-06-01 | wc -l 438 There's no way to keep that pace unless we can really trust our testing machinery to let us know what's safe by the time we get to code review. As our tools mature, I really hope we'll start using them more across different projects, because the benefit they provide is undeniable. Cheers, f _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
