[Qgis-psc] Handling the Travis CI situation

[Anita Graser]

Thanks everyone for the insights!

On 06.11.2020 09:12, Matthias Kuhn wrote:
> The additional work is required even if we roll our own CI instance.
> It's 98% work with respect to dependencies which will also be updated
> there and is not github workflow specific.

So if we want to keep our test suite (and don't want to lose testing
capabilities that were funded - in part - by previous rounds of QGIS
grants), we have to invest, don't we?

> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 9:05 AM Richard Duivenvoorde
> <rdmailings at duif.net <mailto:rdmailings at duif.net>> wrote:
>
>     On 11/6/20 8:07 AM, Nyall Dawson wrote:
>     > I don't think any one individual will be able to do this, and am
>     > raising the question with PSC of whether qgis.org
>     <http://qgis.org> is able to fund a
>     > coordinated sprint effort ...
>     > My estimate is that we're looking at a total commitment of roughly
>     > 10-12 developer days effort here. (Including the 3.10/3.16
>     backports)
>
>     Playing devil's advocate here: 10-12 days is a reasonable amount
>     of work money.
>
I think this is exactly the kind of work that QGIS.ORG sustaining
members want us to fund.

Imho, backports for 3.10 may be up for discussion if they are
particularly time consuming.

Regards,

Anita

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20201108/12cbd4fa/attachment.html>