Skip to content

Conversation

@pfultz2
Copy link
Contributor

@pfultz2 pfultz2 commented Jan 3, 2022

No description provided.

@firewave
Copy link
Collaborator

firewave commented Jan 3, 2022

It fails without the file - that's what I meant with "keep the configuration" (similar to Travis). We (rather Daniel) just need to disable this repository in Appveyor itself and that job should just go away.

@firewave
Copy link
Collaborator

firewave commented Jan 3, 2022

We also need to adjust the readme.md to reflect the (supposedly) supported minimum Visual Studio version if we keep that code.

@danmar
Copy link
Owner

danmar commented Jan 4, 2022

It fails without the file - that's what I meant with "keep the configuration" (similar to Travis). We (rather Daniel) just need to disable this repository in Appveyor itself and that job should just go away.

I have configured "Skip branch if there is no appveyor.yml" in appveyor settings. So as I understand it we can keep the project for a little while but it will not run without this file.

@danmar
Copy link
Owner

danmar commented Jan 4, 2022

The "Skip branch if there is no appveyor.yml" did not seem to work well so I removed our appveyor project.

@firewave
Copy link
Collaborator

firewave commented Jan 4, 2022

The "Skip branch if there is no appveyor.yml" did not seem to work well so I removed our appveyor project.

Thanks.

I checked the file and it seems we already moved everything to GitHub actions so it was just testing additional Qt versions and Visual Studio Toolsets. The Qt builds will be addressed with the tooling re-definition and CI improvements. I will also look into testing other Visual Studio toolsets. So this can actually be merged.

@danmar danmar merged commit feb5c58 into danmar:main Jan 5, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants