Hi Matthew, On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Matthew Brett <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Fernando Perez <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > We (nipy'ers) are heavy users of numpy and scipy. > > We use travis-ci for testing individual commits to personal repos: > > https://github.com/nipy/nibabel/blob/master/.travis.yml > > (using standard travis-ci python test machinery, multiple python versions) > > https://github.com/nipy/dipy/blob/master/.travis.yml > https://github.com/nipy/nipy/blob/master/.travis.yml > > (using a hack to test against a system python, to avoid multiple > compiles of numpy / scipy). We've also been discussing numpy / scipy > compiles on the Travis-CI mailing list : > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/travis-ci/uJgu35XKdmI/discussion. > > For the main repos we use buildbot and test on: > > Ubuntu Maverick 32-bit > Debian sid 64-bit > OSX 10.4 PPC > OSX 10.5 Intel > Debian wheezy PPC > Debian squeeze ARM (a Raspberry PI no less) > WIndows XP 32 bit > SPARC (courtesy of our friends at NeuroDebian) > > http://nipy.bic.berkeley.edu/builders > > We've found several issues with numpy using these, and I've fed them > back as I found them, > > http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/2076 > http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/2077 > http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/2174 > > They are particularly useful for difficult to reproduce problems > because they test often and leave a record that we can point to. As > I've said before, y'all are welcome to use these machines for numpy > builds / tests.
This is amazing, thanks a lot for the email. I'll talk to you offlist. Thanks, Ondrej _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
