Skip to content

Conversation

reaperhulk
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@alex
Copy link
Member

alex commented Apr 13, 2015

Is this better than after_script? (No opinions, just asking)

@reaperhulk
Copy link
Member Author

I have no opinion either.

@alex
Copy link
Member

alex commented Apr 13, 2015

I lied, I very very slightly think "after_script" is more appropriate

@reaperhulk
Copy link
Member Author

Well since we're still waiting on CI let's just change it now :)

@alex
Copy link
Member

alex commented Apr 13, 2015

A+

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.22%) to 95.0% when pulling 9f792f4 on reaperhulk:coverage-bullshit into 4ca37f7 on pyca:master.

1 similar comment
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.22%) to 95.0% when pulling 9f792f4 on reaperhulk:coverage-bullshit into 4ca37f7 on pyca:master.

alex added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 14, 2015
submit coverage whether or not travis actually succeeds.
@alex alex merged commit a8d268a into pyca:master Apr 14, 2015
@reaperhulk reaperhulk deleted the coverage-bullshit branch April 14, 2015 15:35
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 23, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants