Re: [python-committers] No Travis-CI on OS X?

Travis's macOS builds aren't as slow as they used to be, between them adding capacity and our queue increase. Alex On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > Is there a way to get faster OS X builds with our connections at Travis-CI? > I agree that OS X

Re: [python-committers] No Travis-CI on OS X?

Is there a way to get faster OS X builds with our connections at Travis-CI? I agree that OS X builds are usually very slow (though it depends on daytime, see https://www.traviscistatus.com/#week), but perhaps it's possible to improve on that :-) Regards Antoine. Le 02/05/2017 à 23:37, Donald

Re: [python-committers] No Travis-CI on OS X?

2017-05-02 23:37 GMT+02:00 Donald Stufft : > I think the only reason we don’t have them on is because the macOS builds on > Travis are _Super_ slow and regularly get a large backlog. Fast Finish and > Allowed Failures would help with that though. Maybe we can start with a small

Re: [python-committers] No Travis-CI on OS X?

> On May 2, 2017, at 5:35 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > Hi, > > Perhaps it would be possible to set up a Travis CI matrix entry for OS > X, those builds are often quite slow but at least it could be part of > the "allowed failures" suite. That would help detect

[python-committers] No Travis-CI on OS X?

Hi, Perhaps it would be possible to set up a Travis CI matrix entry for OS X, those builds are often quite slow but at least it could be part of the "allowed failures" suite. That would help detect platform issues at PR time rather than later :-) Regards Antoine.

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

On May 02, 2017, at 03:54 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: >To touch on this a bit more, arguably GitHub is *more* suited to long form >discussion, given that it includes the ability to format your text which is >an incredibly important part of producing readable content more then a few >sentences long.

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

On 2 May 2017 at 20:42, Donald Stufft wrote: > > On May 2, 2017, at 3:09 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > >> This doesn't have much to do with UX/UI. It's mainly a questions >> of culture. Github is more geared up for a culture of quick chat >> style comments,

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

> On May 2, 2017, at 3:42 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > >> On May 2, 2017, at 3:09 PM, M.-A. Lemburg > > wrote: >> >> This doesn't have much to do with UX/UI. It's mainly a questions >> of culture. Github is more geared up for a

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

> On May 2, 2017, at 2:37 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote: > > On 5/2/17 2:13 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I'm just skeptical that we can stop >> this tide. New contributors are familiar with GitHub and GitHub only, >> and for them, BPO looks and

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

On 5/2/17 2:13 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I'm just skeptical that we can stop this tide. New contributors are familiar with GitHub and GitHub only, and for them, BPO looks and feels like a legacy system. And honestly, for smaller projects, I've found GitHub a

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

On 2017-05-02 20:28, Terry Reedy wrote: > On 5/2/2017 10:07 AM, R. David Murray wrote: >> On Tue, 02 May 2017 09:36:02 +0200, "M.-A. Lemburg" >> wrote: > >>> IMO, it's much easier for everyone to just always point people >>> to BPO for discussions and keep PRs reserved for code

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

On 5/2/2017 10:07 AM, R. David Murray wrote: On Tue, 02 May 2017 09:36:02 +0200, "M.-A. Lemburg" wrote: IMO, it's much easier for everyone to just always point people to BPO for discussions and keep PRs reserved for code reviews. I agree with Mark-Andre here. It will take

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I'm just skeptical that we can stop this tide. New contributors are familiar with GitHub and GitHub only, and for them, BPO looks and feels like a legacy system. And honestly, for smaller projects, I've found GitHub a very effective place to have discussions (e.g.

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

On 5/2/17 10:07 AM, R. David Murray wrote: On Tue, 02 May 2017 09:36:02 +0200, "M.-A. Lemburg" wrote: On 02.05.2017 04:25, Nick Coghlan wrote: On 2 May 2017 at 08:32, Christian Heimes wrote: This brings me to my questions 1) Should we try to move

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

On Tue, 02 May 2017 09:36:02 +0200, "M.-A. Lemburg" wrote: > On 02.05.2017 04:25, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > On 2 May 2017 at 08:32, Christian Heimes wrote: > >> This brings me to my questions > >> > >> 1) Should we try to move discussion back to BPO or are we

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

On 02.05.2017 04:25, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 2 May 2017 at 08:32, Christian Heimes wrote: >> This brings me to my questions >> >> 1) Should we try to move discussion back to BPO or are we fine with >> having major decisions just in Github PRs? >> >> 2) How can we retain

Re: [python-committers] Github reviews are cannibalizing BPO

On 02.05.2017 00:32, Christian Heimes wrote: > This brings me to my questions > > 1) Should we try to move discussion back to BPO or are we fine with > having major decisions just in Github PRs? We've had that discussion before: discussions always should happen on BPO, not Github PRs. PRs are