I've got no objections. Appreciate you adding coverage support.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 10:06 PM Marco de Abreu
wrote:
> Tianqi and Kellen, do you mind if we move ahead and merge
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11344 now?
>
> -Marco
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 4:50 PM Yasser Zama
Tianqi and Kellen, do you mind if we move ahead and merge
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11344 now?
-Marco
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 4:50 PM Yasser Zamani
wrote:
> +1 but just as an MXNet lover newbie :)
>
> We at Apache Struts, already use "coveralls" and I personally like it a
>
+1 but just as an MXNet lover newbie :)
We at Apache Struts, already use "coveralls" and I personally like it a
lot even with some limitations with it. It doesn't allow us to merge a
PR with a not tested code. It reports us where are those not covered new
codes.
Regards.
On 6/21/2018 7:13 PM, Ma
To avoid any confusion, I have disable the PR comments at
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11344/files#diff-1f7b4b85ed8525c5239f741431a72872R25.
Thus, the data will only be recorded in the background is then retrievable
at https://codecov.io/gh/apache/incubator-mxnet/pulls.
-Marco
O
Hi Kellen,
Thanks for your feedback.
The same argument about a hosted service could be applied to GitHub - we
could just use the git repository hosted under Apache Infra then and
completely stick to JIRA. This service gives us the advantage of being free
of charge, a mature project and having bui
-0.1 (non-binding).
Looks good, and I like the idea of adding coverage, however I have a few
minor issues with this approach:
First it seems to use a hosted service, which can disappear / be acquired /
change terms at any time. In general I would try and avoid using services
like this for Apache
we should have a betting pool on what the current coverage is.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:54 PM Naveen Swamy wrote:
> +1 to collect data on coverage.
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:38 PM, Marco de Abreu <
> marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > for now, this is only a t
+1 to collect data on coverage.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:38 PM, Marco de Abreu <
marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> for now, this is only a test for myself and a way to gather data in order
> to give us the possibility to make a data-driven decision. So far, we have
> not
Hello,
for now, this is only a test for myself and a way to gather data in order
to give us the possibility to make a data-driven decision. So far, we have
not decided on the implications and which restrictions we will set as
result for the produced metrics and I'd like to postpone that until we k
While I think test coverage is a nice information to have. I would object
to using this as a metric to decide whether a PR should be merged.
Code-cov act as a mere coverage of APIs, which is a useful aspect, it can
be misleading in many cases, especially when such change involves
cross-language API
Hello,
I'd like to introduce test coverage metrics of PRs using https://codecov.io/.
This tool will aggregate coverage reports across multiple runs, platforms
and technologies and gives contributors as well as reviewers a new tool
that allows to improve the quality of a pull request.
Since we nee
11 matches
Mail list logo
