On 2010-10-21 06:33, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > Finally, we need more automation. Refereeing code shouldn't > have to involve downloading and applying patches and running all > tests--that should all be done automatically (with failing tickets > bounced right away, or at least in a 24-48 hour window). We should > have a notebook server with sessions of Sage with various tickets > already applied for quick refereeing (or a CLI interface on, say, > boxen for those who prefer that--"telnet/ssh > 10921.sage.math.washington.edu" would be cool, opening you immediately > into a jailed sage session). I'll plug > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9967 which is a requirement > for this and I just recently started to write a per-ticket build bot. > This would help close the gap and lag between writing code and getting > it into Sage, and I think that having such a small gap was one of the > key ingredients in letting Sage explode like it did.
I'm afraid your solution is not very scalable. I don't think it's realistic to have a large number of independent notebook servers with various tickets. I think an automated system to do doctests is possible, but if you want also to log in and try things you need many independent Sage setups. If each one takes several gigabytes, that looks not practical. Jeroen. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
