On 26 July 2018 at 02:13, Erik Bray <erik.m.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think a new approach that might be more practical for actually > getting this platform re-supported, is to go ahead and add a CI build, > and just skip all known failing test modules. This is what I've done > in a new PR to add a Cygwin build on AppVeyor: > > https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/8463 > > This is far from ideal of course, and should not mean the platform is > "supported". But now I and others can go through and fix the > remaining test failures, re-enable those modules in the CI > configuration, and actually obtain some meaningful results, which will > hopefully encourage the core committers to accept fixes for the > platform.
I believe the PEP 538 & 540 locale handling tests are amongst those that are still a bit sketchy (or outright broken?) on Cygwin, and I think having an advisory CI bot would definitely help with that. (Cygwin/MinGW are an interesting hybrid that really highlight the fact that neither "POSIX implies not Windows" nor "Windows implies the Win32 API" are entirely valid assumptions) So your suggested approach seems like a plausible way forward to me. The main potentially viable alternative I see would be to set up the *buildbot* first, and then devote the custom builder branch to the task of Cygwin testing for a while: https://devguide.python.org/buildbots/#custom-builders However, I think the overall UX of that would be worse than going down the advisory CI path (especially since it wouldn't really help with the aspect of parallel development introducing new Cygwin failures). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
