On 04:31 pm, c...@msu.edu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 04:21:06PM +0000, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hello,
Sorry for the little redundancy, I would like to underline Jean-Paul's
suggestion here:
Le Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:05:12 +0000, exarkun a ??crit??:
> I think that money can help in two ways in this case.
>
> First, there are now a multitude of cloud hosting providers which
will
> operate a slave machine for you. BuildBot has even begun to support
> this deployment use-case by allowing you to start up and shut down
vms
> on demand to save on costs. Amazon's EC2 service is supported out
of
> the box in the latest release.
I'm not a PSF member, but it seems to me that the PSF could ask Amazon
(or any other virtual machine business anyway) to donate a small
number
of permanent EC2 instances in order to run buildslaves on.
[ ... ]
I'm happy to provide VMs or shell access for Windows (XP, Vista, 7);
Linux
ia64; Linux x86; and Mac OS X.
Okay, let's move on this. Martin has, I believe, said that potential
slave operators only need to contact him to get credentials for new
slaves. Can you make sure to follow up with him to get slaves running
on these machines? Or would you rather give out access to someone else
and have them do the build slave setup?
Others have made similar offers.
I'll similarly encourage them to take action, then. Do you happen to
remember who?
The
architectures supported by the cloud services don't really add anything
(and generally don't have Mac OS X support, AFAIK).
That's not entirely accurate. Currently, CPython has slaves on these
platforms:
- x86
- FreeBSD
- Windows XP
- Gentoo Linux
- OS X
- ia64
- Ubuntu Linux
- Alpha
- Debian Linux
So, assuming we don't want to introduce any new OS, Amazon could fill in
the following holes:
- x86
- Ubuntu Linux
- ia64
- FreeBSD
- Windows XP
- Gentoo Linux
So very modestly, that's 4 currently missing slaves which Amazon's cloud
service *does* add. It's easy to imagine further additions it could
make as well.
What we really need (IMO) is someone to dig into the tests to figure
out which
tests fail randomly and why, and to fix them on specific architectures
that
most of us don't personally use. This is hard work that is neither
glamorous
nor popular.
Sure. That's certainly necessary. I don't think anyone is suggesting
that it's not. Fortunately, adding more build slaves is not mutually
exclusive with a developer fixing bugs in CPython.
I think the idea of paying a dedicated developer to make the
CPython+buildbot
tests reliable is better, although I would still be -0 on it (I don't
think
the PSF should be paying for this kind of thing at all).
I hope everyone is on board with the idea of fixing bugs in CPython,
either in the actual implementation of features or in the tests for
those features. That being the case, the discussion of whether or not
the PSF should try to fund such a task is perhaps best discussed on the
PSF members list.
Jean-Paul
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
