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

Revert "Add use_2to3 keyword to setup()." #173

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 4, 2019

Conversation

blueyed
Copy link
Contributor

@blueyed blueyed commented Nov 3, 2019

Appears to not be necessary anymore (at least no changes for py37 for
me), and prevents editable installs.

Initially done for #16.

This reverts commit d86c166.

Appears to not be necessary anymore (at least no changes for py37 for
me), and prevents editable installs.

Initially done for gotcha#16.

This reverts commit d86c166.
@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Nov 3, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #173 into master will increase coverage by 0.76%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #173      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   38.85%   39.62%   +0.76%     
==========================================
  Files           5        5              
  Lines         157      159       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits           61       63       +2     
  Misses         96       96
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
setup.py 100% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
ipdb/__main__.py 26.36% <0%> (+0.67%) ⬆️
ipdb/stdout.py 44.44% <0%> (+2.13%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 114d1f9...86a8ade. Read the comment docs.

@gotcha gotcha merged commit 01e96f8 into gotcha:master Nov 4, 2019
@gotcha
Copy link
Owner

gotcha commented Nov 4, 2019

@blueyed Do you need a release ?

@blueyed blueyed deleted the rm-use_2to3 branch November 4, 2019 20:33
@blueyed
Copy link
Contributor Author

blueyed commented Nov 4, 2019

@gotcha
No, thanks for asking.. :)

btw: I was looking at it since I will likely drop the dependency on fancycompleter/pyrepl from pdb++ (make it optional), since it works pretty good through ipdb/ipython, which has better completion via Jedi then.

You might want to try it (use master, the last release is old - https://github.com/pdbpp/pdbpp/): when using ipdb.set_trace the hijacking of pdb++ makes it being used there then also.

@gotcha
Copy link
Owner

gotcha commented Nov 5, 2019

@blueyed Thanks for the pointer ! I did not know there was a way to override pdb. The fact I need to be explicit about ipdb is the main reason why I dont use it as regularly as I wish.

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