Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Recommend six 1.9.0, and have Travis-CI test using that version. #108

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 9, 2015

Conversation

daira
Copy link
Contributor

@daira daira commented Jan 9, 2015

Signed-off-by: Daira Hopwood daira@jacaranda.org

Signed-off-by: Daira Hopwood <daira@jacaranda.org>
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same when pulling 22f4c1b on 99-update-recommended-six-version into 4e6f57a on master.

@daira
Copy link
Contributor Author

daira commented Jan 9, 2015

(Travis was probably already using 1.9.0 in any case because it is a >= constraint, which is why the tests didn't fail when the fix for #99 was committed. But a more precise constraint can't hurt)

@takluyver
Copy link
Contributor

I don't think that part of the test actually relies on six at all - it just compares the output code to what it expects, it doesn't actually try running it. Either way, I think this is fine.

brettcannon added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 9, 2015
…ix-version

Recommend six 1.9.0, and have Travis-CI test using that version.
@brettcannon brettcannon merged commit a55c9e3 into master Jan 9, 2015
@takluyver takluyver deleted the 99-update-recommended-six-version branch January 9, 2015 20:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants