Skip to content

Conversation

reaperhulk
Copy link
Member

This is an experiment to stop using the lucid hack and custom compile OpenSSL 0.9.8zh for coverage purposes on travis.

@mention-bot
Copy link

By analyzing the blame information on this pull request, we identified @alex, @Ayrx and @dstufft to be potential reviewers

@alex
Copy link
Member

alex commented Dec 23, 2015

This also removes several builds, can we make removing builds and switiching how we compile OpenSSL be two separate steps?

@codecov-io
Copy link

Current coverage is 99.98%

Merging #2553 into master will not affect coverage as of 2f044a2

@@            master   #2553   diff @@
======================================
  Files          125     125       
  Stmts        13700   13773    +73
  Branches      1465    1472     +7
  Methods          0       0       
======================================
+ Hit          13698   13771    +73
  Partial          2       2       
  Missed           0       0       

Review entire Coverage Diff as of 2f044a2

Powered by Codecov. Updated on successful CI builds.

@reaperhulk
Copy link
Member Author

Coverage problems are due to being newer than 0.9.8m, when we have some branches based on that. I'll drop us to 0.9.8l I guess (yuck).

@reaperhulk
Copy link
Member Author

and 0.9.8l doesn't want to compile. going to let this one sit for a bit while I think about what to do...

@reaperhulk reaperhulk added this to the Twelfth Release milestone Jan 1, 2016
@reaperhulk reaperhulk changed the title 0.9.8 experiment for travis Build our own 0.9.8 on travis Jan 1, 2016
reaperhulk added a commit to reaperhulk/cryptography that referenced this pull request Jan 2, 2016
reaperhulk added a commit to reaperhulk/cryptography that referenced this pull request Jan 2, 2016
reaperhulk added a commit to reaperhulk/cryptography that referenced this pull request Jan 2, 2016
.travis.yml Outdated
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we add the letter here, in the event we want to add more in the future I don't want untangling this to be a pain.

@alex
Copy link
Member

alex commented Jan 2, 2016

Besides that comment this looks ok to me, but I'd like another pair of eyes because this is a little wild.

Also, how long does compilation take? Keep in mind it will happen on the first push in any PR series.

@reaperhulk
Copy link
Member Author

It adds about 2-3 minutes to the runtime of the job within the build.

@alex
Copy link
Member

alex commented Jan 2, 2016

👍

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Unless there's a compelling reason can we drop the v, it makes the logs hard to read.

@dstufft
Copy link
Member

dstufft commented Jan 2, 2016

This change looks OK To me, though I agree with the dropping of v from the tar command.

alex added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 2, 2016
Build our own 0.9.8 on travis
@alex alex merged commit ad3020e into pyca:master Jan 2, 2016
@reaperhulk reaperhulk deleted the 098-change branch January 3, 2016 01:34
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Changes Unknown when pulling 80b1281 on reaperhulk:098-change into ** on pyca:master**.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 11, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants