Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

Hello. Le mar. 29 mars 2022 à 13:22, sebb a écrit : > > It looks like there is a general move to switch from Travis to GitHub Actions. AFAIK, there has never been a clear explanation for that move. > AFAICT the following components are still using Travis: > > geometry > jelly > jxpath > math >

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

Hi Sebb, Yep, geometry is still using Travis. I've never used GitHub Actions so I'm not sure what it's capable of. Are there any specific features it provides that are driving the migration to it? Or is it more a matter of community preference? Either way is fine, I'm just curious. Regards, Matt

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 12:22, sebb wrote: > It looks like there is a general move to switch from Travis to GitHub > Actions. > AFAICT the following components are still using Travis: > > geometry > jelly > jxpath > math > numbers > rng > weaver > > Do we need to move these as well? > In terms

[ALL] components still using Travis

It looks like there is a general move to switch from Travis to GitHub Actions. AFAICT the following components are still using Travis: geometry jelly jxpath math numbers rng weaver Do we need to move these as well? BTW, emails from GHA runs can now be directed to project mailing lists, which is

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

Hello. Le mar. 29 mars 2022 à 15:23, Alex Herbert a écrit : > > [...] > > The feature I liked from Travis was the integration of coverage reports > from coveralls. This would red light a PR in the main page if coverage had > dropped. There is no coveralls GHA. I installed the Codecov action for

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 14:43, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > Hello. > > Le mar. 29 mars 2022 à 15:23, Alex Herbert a > écrit : > > > > [...] > > > > The feature I liked from Travis was the integration of coverage reports > > from coveralls. This would red light a PR in the main page if coverage > had

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 15:27, Rob Tompkins wrote: > > I wonder if the python script will be effective in doing the migration > properly. I’ll try to carve some time out to help here. In the case of Commons, most of the components have very similar needs, so one can probably just copy existing

Re: [Math] Review of "genetic algorithm" module

Hi All Please find my comments below. [...] >Just quickly commenting on this point. >IIUC, your purpose is for users to be able to run (an example >application of) the old implementation. > >This can be achieved by having all the "legacy" codes within >module >

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 13:57, Matt Juntunen wrote: > > Hi Sebb, > > Yep, geometry is still using Travis. I've never used GitHub Actions so > I'm not sure what it's capable of. Are there any specific features it > provides that are driving the migration to it? Or is it more a matter > of community

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

I wonder if the python script will be effective in doing the migration properly. I’ll try to carve some time out to help here. -Rob > On Mar 29, 2022, at 10:19 AM, sebb wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 13:57, Matt Juntunen wrote: >> >> Hi Sebb, >> >> Yep, geometry is still using Travis.

Re: [ALL] components still using Travis

> On Mar 29, 2022, at 10:51 AM, sebb wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 15:27, Rob Tompkins > wrote: >> >> I wonder if the python script will be effective in doing the migration >> properly. I’ll try to carve some time out to help here. > > In the case of Commons,