Re: [core-workflow] Questions about the proposed workflows

2015-12-02 Thread Berker Peksağ
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > It's Dec 1, which means it's time for any questions people have about the > proposed workflows so we can get answers by Dec 15. > > I have one question that applies to both proposals and one specific to > GitLab. The general one is whether both

Re: [core-workflow] Questions about the proposed workflows

2015-12-02 Thread Brett Cannon
On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 at 03:42 Berker Peksağ wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > It's Dec 1, which means it's time for any questions people have about the > > proposed workflows so we can get answers by Dec 15. > > > > I have one question that applies to both proposals

Re: [core-workflow] Questions about the proposed workflows

2015-12-02 Thread R. David Murray
On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 18:34:49 +, Brett Cannon wrote: > And this bot doesn't have to do it, but we should definitely make sure we > have at least automated testing of all PRs on *some* OS and also a way to Kushal did some work in this direction (for unix builds), but we haven't done anything wi

Re: [core-workflow] Questions about the proposed workflows

2015-12-02 Thread Brett Cannon
On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 at 10:50 R. David Murray wrote: > On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 18:34:49 +, Brett Cannon wrote: > > And this bot doesn't have to do it, but we should definitely make sure we > > have at least automated testing of all PRs on *some* OS and also a way to > > Kushal did some work in thi

Re: [core-workflow] Questions about the proposed workflows

2015-12-02 Thread Donald Stufft
> On Dec 2, 2015, at 1:58 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 at 10:50 R. David Murray > wrote: > On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 18:34:49 +, Brett Cannon > wrote: > > And this bot doesn't have to do it, but we should definitely m

Re: [core-workflow] Questions about the proposed workflows

2015-12-02 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Dec 02, 2015, at 06:58 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: >Barry has said that GitLab supports runners but you have to run them >yourselves. There are now some shared runners that we can probably use. I haven't had much time to investigate them though. Cheers, -Barry pgpjMH_vaU4G3.pgp Description: O

Re: [core-workflow] Questions about the proposed workflows

2015-12-02 Thread R. David Murray
On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 18:58:34 +, Brett Cannon wrote: > On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 at 10:50 R. David Murray wrote: > > > On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 18:34:49 +, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > And this bot doesn't have to do it, but we should definitely make sure we > > > have at least automated testing of all

Re: [core-workflow] Questions about the proposed workflows

2015-12-02 Thread Donald Stufft
> On Dec 2, 2015, at 2:21 PM, R. David Murray wrote: > > That's interesting. I thought someone had already tried travis and our > test suite took too long to run. Sounds like Kushal's stuff could be > hooked up to gitlab. Unless I did it wrong, the tests took 11 minutes to run, Travis allows

Re: [core-workflow] Questions about the proposed workflows

2015-12-02 Thread R. David Murray
On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 14:23:41 -0500, Donald Stufft wrote: > > > On Dec 2, 2015, at 2:21 PM, R. David Murray wrote: > > > > That's interesting. I thought someone had already tried travis and our > > test suite took too long to run. Sounds like Kushal's stuff could be > > hooked up to gitlab. >

Re: [core-workflow] Questions about the proposed workflows

2015-12-02 Thread Donald Stufft
> On Dec 2, 2015, at 2:45 PM, R. David Murray wrote: > > On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 14:23:41 -0500, Donald Stufft wrote: >> >>> On Dec 2, 2015, at 2:21 PM, R. David Murray wrote: >>> >>> That's interesting. I thought someone had already tried travis and our >>> test suite took too long to run. So