[Numpy-discussion] NumPy 1.7 release delays

[Fernando Perez]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Ondřej Čertík <ondrej.certik at gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you use anything else besides Travis CI?

Yes, we use both Shining Panda and Travis CI:

https://jenkins.shiningpanda.com/ipython/
http://travis-ci.org/#!/ipython/ipython

The SP setup is more complete, including Mac and Windows bots.

> I donated money to them and they enabled pull request
> testing for SymPy and it's invaluable. We also use
> our custom sympy-bot (https://github.com/sympy/sympy-bot) to test pull
> request, but now
> when Travis can do that, we might just use that.

We have a version of that: after Aaron Meurer gave us an invaluable
and detailed report on how you guys used it, Thomas Kluyver built for
us our new test_pr script:

https://github.com/ipython/ipython/blob/master/tools/test_pr.py

which we regularly use now in most PRs, e.g.:

https://github.com/ipython/ipython/pull/2015#issuecomment-6566387

It has proven to be *extremely* useful.

This is some of the infrastructure that I hope we'll gradually start
using across all the projects (the topic of some of the threads in the
numfocus list).  In IPython, our ability to rapidly absorb code has
improved tremendously in part thanks to the smooth workflow these
tools give us; just in the month of June we've merged 116 PRs totaling
over 400 commits:

(master)dreamweaver[ipython]> git log --oneline --since 2012-06-01 |
grep "Merge pull request" | wc -l
116

(master)dreamweaver[ipython]> git log --oneline --since 2012-06-01 | wc -l
438

There's no way to keep that pace unless we can really trust our
testing machinery to let us know what's safe by the time we get to
code review.

As our tools mature, I really hope we'll start using them more across
different projects, because the benefit they provide is undeniable.

Cheers,

f