On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 at 20:30 Ned Deily <n...@python.org> wrote: > On Jun 3, 2018, at 22:30, Steve Dower <steve.do...@python.org> wrote: > > We probably have enough data on the VSTS builds by now to see whether > they are comparable/faster than AppVeyor. Obviously the idea of doing that > work was to be able to migrate builds if it made sense, and if we decide > not to then they get ripped out (non-binding PR checks are confusing IMHO, > particularly when they duplicate required checks). > > > > I have no idea whether that discussion is still ongoing on > core-workflow, but if it seems better then maybe it’s time? Anyone can view > the VSTS build history starting from > https://python.visualstudio.com/cpython/_build and browsing into the > build definition of interest. > > My gut feel from observing the progress of PRs over the past couple of > weeks is that the VSTS CI builds are faster and much less problematic than > the AppVeyor builds have been. That said, one significant Windows test > bottleneck was identified last week (largefile tests in test_mmap) on some > buildbots and was disabled. We've now also disabled it on AppVeyor, once > AppVeyor starts running our tests again, and I've suggested it be disabled > on the VSTS Windows CI runs as well. That, along with a number of other > test fixes made over the past week, may help eliminate with AppVeyor. But, > at this point, I think we should seriously consider dropping mandatory > AppVeyor CI runs in favor of the VSTS ones. > > Brett, do you concur? And, if so, can you make it happen? >
I'll start a discussion over on core-workflow. -Brett > > -- > Ned Deily > n...@python.org -- [] > >
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
