On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Matthew Brett <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Olivier Grisel <[email protected]> > wrote: >> If we can run all the scipy stack tests (say for instance numpy, >> scipy, pandas, scikit-learn, scikit-image, statsmodel) with the >> openblas built on the manylinux1 docker image using Matthew's script >> on a variety of boxes, then I am fine with using openblas. If running >> the tests reveals unresolved bugs / crashes in OpenBLAS, then I think >> we should go with atlas in the short term and re-examine that decision >> in a couple of months. > > At the moment, we know of > https://github.com/xianyi/OpenBLAS/issues/783 which is not yet fixed > in master. > > I see that Zhang Xianyi has set up OpenBLAS buildbot runs already: > > https://github.com/xianyi/OpenBLAS/issues/785 > > I guess we could add to those with nightly build / test runs. > > We need to decide what to do now though. Should we work on building > up some heavy-duty CI to convince ourselves OpenBLAS is reliable and > commit after that, or should we accept the risk now, on the basis that > we will have some chance of errors / crashes?
Specifically - if we could run the heavy-duty CI now, with some version of OpenBLAS, where the numpy scipy scikit-learn pandas statsmodels tests all pass, on a range of machines, would that be enough to make us commit to OpenBLAS, both now and in the long term? Matthew _______________________________________________ Wheel-builders mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/wheel-builders
