ci: removed deprecated appveyor CI #171
Merged
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
* appveyor used to be our sole CI for windows * this has now been handed over to github actions * removing this config and the need to manage tokens * fixes go-openapi#161 * fixes go-openapi#167 (duplicate) Signed-off-by: Frederic BIDON <fredbi@yahoo.com>
Member
Author
|
update: needed to remove the appveyor check in the repo settings |
Member
Author
|
@casualjim if you agree with the principle of deprecating appveyor, I'll remove the webhook from the settings in this repo. |
casualjim
approved these changes
Dec 1, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
appveyor used to be our sole CI for windows
this has now been handed over to github actions
removing this config and the need to manage tokens
fixes Vulnerability Reported for Slack Webhook by Gitleaks Secret Detection #161
fixes Is this an exposed secret? #167 (duplicate)