Re: [Numpy-discussion] Appveyor Testing Changes

2016-01-26 Thread Ralf Gommers 
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:13 AM, G Young  wrote:

> Ah, yes, that is true.  That point had completely escaped my mind.  In
> light of this, it seems that it's not worth the while then to completely
> switch over to pip + virtualenv.  It's might be better actually to rewrite
> the current Appveyor tests to use environments so that the test suite can
> be expanded, though I'm not sure how prudent that is given how slow
> Appveyor tests run.
>

At the moment Appveyor is already a bit of a bottleneck - it regularly
hasn't started yet when TravisCI is already done. This can be solved via a
paid account, we should seriously consider that when we have a bit more
experience with it (Appveyor tests have been running for less than a month
I think). But it does mean we should go for a sparse test matrix, and use a
more complete one (all Python versions for example) on TravisCI. In the
near future we'll have to add MingwPy test runs to Appveyor. Beyond that
I'm not sure what needs to be added?

Ralf



>
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Bryan Van de Ven 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Jan 25, 2016, at 5:21 PM, G Young  wrote:
>> >
>> > With regards to testing numpy, both Conda and Pip + Virtualenv work
>> quite well.  I have used both to install master and run unit tests, and
>> both pass with flying colors.  This chart here illustrates my point nicely
>> as well.
>> >
>> > However, I can't seem to find / access Conda installations for slightly
>> older versions of Python (e.g. Python 3.4).  Perhaps this is not much of an
>> issue now with the next release (1.12) being written only for Python 2.7
>> and Python 3.4 - 5.  However, if we were to wind the clock slightly back to
>> when we were testing 2.6 - 7, 3.2 - 5, I feel Conda falls short in being
>> able to test on a variety of Python distributions given the nature of Conda
>> releases.  Maybe that situation is no longer the case now, but in the long
>> term, it could easily happen again.
>>
>> Why do you need the installers? The whole point of conda is to be able to
>> create environments with whatever configuration you need. Just pick the
>> newest installer and use "conda create" from there:
>>
>> bryan@0199-bryanv (git:streaming) ~/work/bokeh/bokeh $ conda create -n
>> py26 python=2.6
>> Fetching package metadata: ..
>> Solving package specifications: ..
>> Package plan for installation in environment
>> /Users/bryan/anaconda/envs/py26:
>>
>> The following packages will be downloaded:
>>
>> package|build
>> ---|-
>> setuptools-18.0.1  |   py26_0 343 KB
>> pip-7.1.0  |   py26_0 1.4 MB
>> 
>>Total: 1.7 MB
>>
>> The following NEW packages will be INSTALLED:
>>
>> openssl:1.0.1k-1
>> pip:7.1.0-py26_0
>> python: 2.6.9-1
>> readline:   6.2-2
>> setuptools: 18.0.1-py26_0
>> sqlite: 3.9.2-0
>> tk: 8.5.18-0
>> zlib:   1.2.8-0
>>
>> Proceed ([y]/n)?
>>
>> ___
>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
>> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
>> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>>
>
>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
>
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Appveyor Testing Changes

2016-01-26 Thread G Young 
Perhaps a pip + virtualenv build as well since that's one way that is
mentioned in the online docs for installing source code.  I can't think of
anything else beyond that and what you suggested for the time being.

Greg

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Ralf Gommers 
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:13 AM, G Young  wrote:
>
>> Ah, yes, that is true.  That point had completely escaped my mind.  In
>> light of this, it seems that it's not worth the while then to completely
>> switch over to pip + virtualenv.  It's might be better actually to rewrite
>> the current Appveyor tests to use environments so that the test suite can
>> be expanded, though I'm not sure how prudent that is given how slow
>> Appveyor tests run.
>>
>
> At the moment Appveyor is already a bit of a bottleneck - it regularly
> hasn't started yet when TravisCI is already done. This can be solved via a
> paid account, we should seriously consider that when we have a bit more
> experience with it (Appveyor tests have been running for less than a month
> I think). But it does mean we should go for a sparse test matrix, and use a
> more complete one (all Python versions for example) on TravisCI. In the
> near future we'll have to add MingwPy test runs to Appveyor. Beyond that
> I'm not sure what needs to be added?
>
> Ralf
>
>
>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Bryan Van de Ven 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > On Jan 25, 2016, at 5:21 PM, G Young  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > With regards to testing numpy, both Conda and Pip + Virtualenv work
>>> quite well.  I have used both to install master and run unit tests, and
>>> both pass with flying colors.  This chart here illustrates my point nicely
>>> as well.
>>> >
>>> > However, I can't seem to find / access Conda installations for
>>> slightly older versions of Python (e.g. Python 3.4).  Perhaps this is not
>>> much of an issue now with the next release (1.12) being written only for
>>> Python 2.7 and Python 3.4 - 5.  However, if we were to wind the clock
>>> slightly back to when we were testing 2.6 - 7, 3.2 - 5, I feel Conda falls
>>> short in being able to test on a variety of Python distributions given the
>>> nature of Conda releases.  Maybe that situation is no longer the case now,
>>> but in the long term, it could easily happen again.
>>>
>>> Why do you need the installers? The whole point of conda is to be able
>>> to create environments with whatever configuration you need. Just pick the
>>> newest installer and use "conda create" from there:
>>>
>>> bryan@0199-bryanv (git:streaming) ~/work/bokeh/bokeh $ conda create -n
>>> py26 python=2.6
>>> Fetching package metadata: ..
>>> Solving package specifications: ..
>>> Package plan for installation in environment
>>> /Users/bryan/anaconda/envs/py26:
>>>
>>> The following packages will be downloaded:
>>>
>>> package|build
>>> ---|-
>>> setuptools-18.0.1  |   py26_0 343 KB
>>> pip-7.1.0  |   py26_0 1.4 MB
>>> 
>>>Total: 1.7 MB
>>>
>>> The following NEW packages will be INSTALLED:
>>>
>>> openssl:1.0.1k-1
>>> pip:7.1.0-py26_0
>>> python: 2.6.9-1
>>> readline:   6.2-2
>>> setuptools: 18.0.1-py26_0
>>> sqlite: 3.9.2-0
>>> tk: 8.5.18-0
>>> zlib:   1.2.8-0
>>>
>>> Proceed ([y]/n)?
>>>
>>> ___
>>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
>>> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
>>> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
>> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
>> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>>
>>
>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
>
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Appveyor Testing Changes

2016-01-25 Thread Nathaniel Smith 
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:37 PM, G Young  wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I currently have a branch on my fork (not PR) where I am experimenting with
> running Appveyor CI via Virtualenv instead of Conda.  I have build running
> here.  What do people think of using Virtualenv (as we do on Travis) instead
> of Conda for testing?

Can you summarize the advantages and disadvantages that you're aware of?

-n

-- 
Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Appveyor Testing Changes

2016-01-25 Thread G Young 
Hello all,

I currently have a branch on my fork (not PR) where I am experimenting with
running Appveyor CI via Virtualenv instead of Conda.  I have build running
here .
What do people think of using Virtualenv (as we do on Travis) instead of
Conda for testing?

Thanks,

Greg
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Appveyor Testing Changes

2016-01-25 Thread G Young 
With regards to testing numpy, both Conda and Pip + Virtualenv work quite
well.  I have used both to install master and run unit tests, and both pass
with flying colors.  This chart here

illustrates
my point nicely as well.

However, I can't seem to find / access Conda installations for slightly
older versions of Python (e.g. Python 3.4).  Perhaps this is not much of an
issue now with the next release (1.12) being written only for Python 2.7
and Python 3.4 - 5.  However, if we were to wind the clock slightly back to
when we were testing 2.6 - 7, 3.2 - 5, I feel Conda falls short in being
able to test on a variety of Python distributions given the nature of Conda
releases.  Maybe that situation is no longer the case now, but in the long
term, it could easily happen again.

Greg


On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Nathaniel Smith  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:37 PM, G Young  wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I currently have a branch on my fork (not PR) where I am experimenting
> with
> > running Appveyor CI via Virtualenv instead of Conda.  I have build
> running
> > here.  What do people think of using Virtualenv (as we do on Travis)
> instead
> > of Conda for testing?
>
> Can you summarize the advantages and disadvantages that you're aware of?
>
> -n
>
> --
> Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Appveyor Testing Changes

2016-01-25 Thread Michael Sarahan 
Conda can generally install older versions of python in environments:

conda create -n myenv python=3.4

You really don't need any particular initial version of python/conda in
order to do this.  You do, however, need to activate the new environment to
use it:

activate myenv

(For windows, you do not need "source")

Hth,
Michael

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016, 17:21 G Young  wrote:

> With regards to testing numpy, both Conda and Pip + Virtualenv work quite
> well.  I have used both to install master and run unit tests, and both pass
> with flying colors.  This chart here
> 
>  illustrates
> my point nicely as well.
>
> However, I can't seem to find / access Conda installations for slightly
> older versions of Python (e.g. Python 3.4).  Perhaps this is not much of an
> issue now with the next release (1.12) being written only for Python 2.7
> and Python 3.4 - 5.  However, if we were to wind the clock slightly back to
> when we were testing 2.6 - 7, 3.2 - 5, I feel Conda falls short in being
> able to test on a variety of Python distributions given the nature of Conda
> releases.  Maybe that situation is no longer the case now, but in the long
> term, it could easily happen again.
>
> Greg
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Nathaniel Smith  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:37 PM, G Young  wrote:
>> > Hello all,
>> >
>> > I currently have a branch on my fork (not PR) where I am experimenting
>> with
>> > running Appveyor CI via Virtualenv instead of Conda.  I have build
>> running
>> > here.  What do people think of using Virtualenv (as we do on Travis)
>> instead
>> > of Conda for testing?
>>
>> Can you summarize the advantages and disadvantages that you're aware of?
>>
>> -n
>>
>> --
>> Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
>> ___
>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
>> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
>> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>>
>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Appveyor Testing Changes

2016-01-25 Thread Bryan Van de Ven 

> On Jan 25, 2016, at 5:21 PM, G Young  wrote:
> 
> With regards to testing numpy, both Conda and Pip + Virtualenv work quite 
> well.  I have used both to install master and run unit tests, and both pass 
> with flying colors.  This chart here illustrates my point nicely as well.  
> 
> However, I can't seem to find / access Conda installations for slightly older 
> versions of Python (e.g. Python 3.4).  Perhaps this is not much of an issue 
> now with the next release (1.12) being written only for Python 2.7 and Python 
> 3.4 - 5.  However, if we were to wind the clock slightly back to when we were 
> testing 2.6 - 7, 3.2 - 5, I feel Conda falls short in being able to test on a 
> variety of Python distributions given the nature of Conda releases.  Maybe 
> that situation is no longer the case now, but in the long term, it could 
> easily happen again.

Why do you need the installers? The whole point of conda is to be able to 
create environments with whatever configuration you need. Just pick the newest 
installer and use "conda create" from there:

bryan@0199-bryanv (git:streaming) ~/work/bokeh/bokeh $ conda create -n py26 
python=2.6
Fetching package metadata: ..
Solving package specifications: ..
Package plan for installation in environment /Users/bryan/anaconda/envs/py26:

The following packages will be downloaded:

package|build
---|-
setuptools-18.0.1  |   py26_0 343 KB
pip-7.1.0  |   py26_0 1.4 MB

   Total: 1.7 MB

The following NEW packages will be INSTALLED:

openssl:1.0.1k-1 
pip:7.1.0-py26_0 
python: 2.6.9-1  
readline:   6.2-2
setuptools: 18.0.1-py26_0
sqlite: 3.9.2-0  
tk: 8.5.18-0 
zlib:   1.2.8-0  

Proceed ([y]/n)? 

___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Appveyor Testing Changes

2016-01-25 Thread G Young 
Ah, yes, that is true.  That point had completely escaped my mind.  In
light of this, it seems that it's not worth the while then to completely
switch over to pip + virtualenv.  It's might be better actually to rewrite
the current Appveyor tests to use environments so that the test suite can
be expanded, though I'm not sure how prudent that is given how slow
Appveyor tests run.

Greg

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Bryan Van de Ven 
wrote:

>
> > On Jan 25, 2016, at 5:21 PM, G Young  wrote:
> >
> > With regards to testing numpy, both Conda and Pip + Virtualenv work
> quite well.  I have used both to install master and run unit tests, and
> both pass with flying colors.  This chart here illustrates my point nicely
> as well.
> >
> > However, I can't seem to find / access Conda installations for slightly
> older versions of Python (e.g. Python 3.4).  Perhaps this is not much of an
> issue now with the next release (1.12) being written only for Python 2.7
> and Python 3.4 - 5.  However, if we were to wind the clock slightly back to
> when we were testing 2.6 - 7, 3.2 - 5, I feel Conda falls short in being
> able to test on a variety of Python distributions given the nature of Conda
> releases.  Maybe that situation is no longer the case now, but in the long
> term, it could easily happen again.
>
> Why do you need the installers? The whole point of conda is to be able to
> create environments with whatever configuration you need. Just pick the
> newest installer and use "conda create" from there:
>
> bryan@0199-bryanv (git:streaming) ~/work/bokeh/bokeh $ conda create -n
> py26 python=2.6
> Fetching package metadata: ..
> Solving package specifications: ..
> Package plan for installation in environment
> /Users/bryan/anaconda/envs/py26:
>
> The following packages will be downloaded:
>
> package|build
> ---|-
> setuptools-18.0.1  |   py26_0 343 KB
> pip-7.1.0  |   py26_0 1.4 MB
> 
>Total: 1.7 MB
>
> The following NEW packages will be INSTALLED:
>
> openssl:1.0.1k-1
> pip:7.1.0-py26_0
> python: 2.6.9-1
> readline:   6.2-2
> setuptools: 18.0.1-py26_0
> sqlite: 3.9.2-0
> tk: 8.5.18-0
> zlib:   1.2.8-0
>
> Proceed ([y]/n)?
>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion