Revert "Fix nondeterminism with environment markers #5239 (#5286)" #5306
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Contributor
|
In a away I think it's ok to revert. However, I liked the idea of using the dictionary keys for an ordered-set. We will have to watch it for a while. I suspect that working with ordered set of depends is better. |
oz123
approved these changes
Aug 29, 2022
yeisonvargasf
pushed a commit
to yeisonvargasf/pipenv
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 19, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This reverts commit 4b9fc02.
@oz123 @bakhtiary -- this reverts: #5286
because the change made here is actually fixing the issue and @dqkqd did some testing without this changeset and it was not required for fixing the issue: #5299 (comment)
I appreciate your effort to make pipenv better, please keep it up! In this case, given some additional comments that came in on that PR and the added complexity that was not required, I think we should revert it.