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

Setup clean #46

Merged
merged 18 commits into from
Apr 11, 2016
Merged

Setup clean #46

merged 18 commits into from
Apr 11, 2016

Conversation

valentinedwv
Copy link
Member

Adds travisCI tests, which runs postgres, mysql, and sqlite database tests.
Setup can be used to publish to PiPy

@emiliom
Copy link
Member

emiliom commented Apr 7, 2016

@valentinedwv, give us a day or so before trying to merge this into master. We have @sreeder's large changes waiting in the pipeline (I'm about to start reviewing them) first.

At the BiGCZ call tomorrow let's talk about your setup/PyPI work and my parallel, overlapping work setting up an anaconda channel with an odm2api package.

@sreeder
Copy link
Contributor

sreeder commented Apr 7, 2016

@valentinedwv I am really looking forward to having the TravisCI tests. @emiliom my changes are requested to be merged with the development branch so they would not conflict with the work on the master yet.

@valentinedwv
Copy link
Member Author

Only thing this hits is the ODMConnection.py and the tests folder.
Failing tests are ODM11.

@emiliom
Copy link
Member

emiliom commented Apr 8, 2016

Only thing this hits is the ODMConnection.py and the tests folder.

And requirements.txt, setup.py, etc. These may impact our parallel work on conda packaging.

How about splitting the PR to separate all the changes to the tests folder and ODMCOnnection.py, vs changes impacting setup? That way you can move forward with the former, and we can discuss the latter.

Thanks.

Using an old label of 0.1 on the earlier version
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
# Versions should comply with PEP440. For a discussion on single-sourcing
# the version across setup.py and the project code, see
# https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/single_source_version.html
version='0.1',
version='0.5',
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"Version 0.5" is a jump. @horsburgh, I'm pinging you here b/c I suspect you'd want to comment on it.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It should be 1.0 or nothing 😜

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We have the ancient code, that we might like to preserve and send up into pypi... that's 0.1
This could be 1.x, but not my call, it's just a big jump because the newer code will be a big jump.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Definitely not 1.0! But I want to make sure @horsburgh says he's comfortable with that big of a jump, to 0.5, for @sreeder's major additions.

I don't think there's any value in sending/preserving 0.1 (the 0.1-alpha tagged pre-release) to live pypi, since the API will change so much after 0.1. FYI, we went ahead with 0.1-alpha on the anaconda channel just to be able to make progress in setting up the channel.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't really have a strong feeling. I'm OK with jumping from 0.1 (the old stuff) to 0.5 with the new merge of Stephanie's updates and then going from there. Hey - ESRI jumped from ArcView 3.3 to ArcGIS 8.something. I always wondered about that...

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks, Jeff. If you're ok I'm ok ;)

We could also shoot for exponential versioning, if that's a thing ...

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Opps, then I should have made it 0.01

@valentinedwv
Copy link
Member Author

moved to shell scripts

@valentinedwv
Copy link
Member Author

Can we merge this?

@valentinedwv valentinedwv merged commit b75b72a into master Apr 11, 2016
@emiliom
Copy link
Member

emiliom commented Apr 11, 2016

Great!

@valentinedwv valentinedwv deleted the setup_clean branch April 11, 2016 23:23
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.

5 participants