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

Remove Python 3.4 run from Travis-CI #1157

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Jun 11, 2017
Merged

Conversation

pitrou
Copy link
Member

@pitrou pitrou commented Jun 11, 2017

This may help speed up builds a bit.
Also remove the ASYNCIO environment variable which doesn't seem examined anywhere.
Also taking the liberty of adding setup.py classifiers.

This may help speed up builds a bit.
Also remove the ASYNCIO environment variable which doesn't seem examined anywhere.
@@ -41,6 +41,19 @@
'distributed.http'],
long_description=(open('README.rst').read() if os.path.exists('README.rst')
else ''),
classifiers=[
"Development Status :: 5 - Production/Stable",
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Perhaps I'm being optimistic?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems fine to me. This seems project seems stable relative to most other projects.

- PYTHON=3.4 COVERAGE=true DASK_EXPERIMENTAL_ZMQ=1
- PYTHON=3.5 CRICK=true ASYNCIO=true
- PYTHON=3.6 PACKAGES=blosc ASYNCIO=true
- PYTHON=3.5 COVERAGE=true PACKAGES=blosc CRICK=true DASK_EXPERIMENTAL_ZMQ=1
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thoughts on dropping ZMQ?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No hard feelings from me. It we drop testing it, though, we can probably drop it from the code base as well. What do you think?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it's value is in verifying that comms is extensible. However now that inproc exists that may suffice. I'm inclined to remove it just to reduce the codebase.

@mrocklin mrocklin merged commit 104b9d7 into dask:master Jun 11, 2017
@mrocklin
Copy link
Member

Merged

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.

None yet

2 participants