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

build: pin urllib3 to <2.0 for now #2455

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 21, 2023
Merged

build: pin urllib3 to <2.0 for now #2455

merged 1 commit into from
May 21, 2023

Conversation

dgw
Copy link
Member

@dgw dgw commented May 21, 2023

CI is broken with urllib3 2.x, but the specific package that fails our tests (vcrpy) is not moving very swiftly to release a fix.

While they debate which versions of urllib3 to support, we just want to have working CI so we can start merging our slowly growing PR backlog.

Because urllib3 is a transitive dependency of requests, it belongs in the regular requirement list even though this pin is to fix tests.

Checklist

  • I have read CONTRIBUTING.md
  • I can and do license this contribution under the EFLv2
  • No issues are reported by make qa (runs make quality and make test)
  • I have tested the functionality of the things this change touches

Notes

This has been blocking us for about two weeks, and that's more than long enough to warrant a temporary dependency pin (even though I prefer to avoid them, in general). I'm subscribed to the upstream issue already pointed out by @SnoopJ, for notifications relevant to undoing this.

CI is broken with urllib3 2.x, but the specific package that fails our
tests (vcrpy) is not moving very swiftly to release a fix.

While they debate which versions of urllib3 to support, we just want to
have working CI so we can start merging our slowly growing PR backlog.

Because urllib3 is a transitive dependency of requests, it belongs in
the regular requirement list even though this pin is to fix tests.
@dgw dgw added the Build label May 21, 2023
@dgw dgw added this to the 8.0.0 milestone May 21, 2023
@dgw dgw requested a review from a team May 21, 2023 10:46
Copy link
Contributor

@Exirel Exirel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Very clear, with follow-up action planned. I like it.

Maybe open an issue on our side so we are sure to track it?

@dgw
Copy link
Member Author

dgw commented May 21, 2023

Maybe open an issue on our side so we are sure to track it?

Certainly, as soon as there is a merge commit to reference in said issue. 😁

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants