Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Revert "ENH: ship six 1.9.0" #6545

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

Closed

Conversation

matthew-brett
Copy link
Contributor

This reverts commit 8fe495a.

Go back to using external six, to fix bug at #6537.

Also - update six required version to 1.10

Conflicts:
lib/matplotlib/artist.py
lib/matplotlib/axes/_base.py
lib/matplotlib/backend_tools.py
lib/matplotlib/backends/backend_mixed.py
lib/matplotlib/backends/backend_pdf.py
lib/matplotlib/backends/backend_svg.py
lib/matplotlib/colors.py
lib/matplotlib/dates.py
lib/matplotlib/font_manager.py
lib/matplotlib/legend_handler.py
lib/matplotlib/tests/test_artist.py
lib/matplotlib/tests/test_axes.py
lib/matplotlib/tests/test_backend_qt5.py
lib/matplotlib/tests/test_dviread.py
lib/matplotlib/tests/test_image.py
lib/matplotlib/tests/test_lines.py
lib/matplotlib/tests/test_spines.py
lib/matplotlib/textpath.py
lib/mpl_toolkits/axes_grid/colorbar.py
lib/mpl_toolkits/axes_grid1/anchored_artists.py
lib/mpl_toolkits/axes_grid1/inset_locator.py

@tacaswell tacaswell added this to the 2.0 (style change major release) milestone Jun 6, 2016
This reverts commit 8fe495a.

Go back to using external six, to fix bug at matplotlib#6537.

Also - update six required version to 1.10

Conflicts:
	lib/matplotlib/artist.py
	lib/matplotlib/axes/_base.py
	lib/matplotlib/backend_tools.py
	lib/matplotlib/backends/backend_mixed.py
	lib/matplotlib/backends/backend_pdf.py
	lib/matplotlib/backends/backend_svg.py
	lib/matplotlib/colors.py
	lib/matplotlib/dates.py
	lib/matplotlib/font_manager.py
	lib/matplotlib/legend_handler.py
	lib/matplotlib/tests/test_artist.py
	lib/matplotlib/tests/test_axes.py
	lib/matplotlib/tests/test_backend_qt5.py
	lib/matplotlib/tests/test_dviread.py
	lib/matplotlib/tests/test_image.py
	lib/matplotlib/tests/test_lines.py
	lib/matplotlib/tests/test_spines.py
	lib/matplotlib/textpath.py
	lib/mpl_toolkits/axes_grid/colorbar.py
	lib/mpl_toolkits/axes_grid1/anchored_artists.py
	lib/mpl_toolkits/axes_grid1/inset_locator.py
@matthew-brett matthew-brett force-pushed the revert-external-six branch from 281fec6 to 792808e Compare June 6, 2016 21:21
@matthew-brett
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think the test failures are now unrelated.

@tacaswell
Copy link
Member

👍 I would merge this now, but I do not have time to backport it so will hold off on that.

@matthew-brett
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm happy to backport - you mean to the v2.x branch?

@jenshnielsen
Copy link
Member

Yes to the 2.x branch. We are basically ready to cut 1.5.2 if we don't hear about any new issues so I think this is too high risk at the moment on 1.5.x and there will probably not be any 1.5 release after 1.5.2

@WeatherGod
Copy link
Member

devil's advocate here:

the original reason for vendoring six was because of changes that were
happening in subsequent releases of six that broke our code. I didn't think
it was ever about pypi's reliability.

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:28 AM, Jens Hedegaard Nielsen <
[email protected]> wrote:

Yes to the 2.x branch. We are basically ready to cut 1.5.2 if we don't
hear about any new issues so I think this is too high risk at the moment on
1.5.x and there will probably not be any 1.5 release after 1.5.2


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#6545 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AARy-O99YQpZ0juGbDWkFkDiymNZlypTks5qJn0vgaJpZM4IvN2V
.

@tacaswell
Copy link
Member

@WeatherGod I mostly recall the issue being bug reports where by people were getting mpl install without a working version of six

@matthew-brett
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think I was the original advocate for vendoring six. One of the arguments was to protect against new bugs in six, but it was always a fairly weak argument, because six is so widely used and stable now. I suppose another year of six gives some more evidence against that case, and conversely, #6537 is someone hitting a bug that has been fixed in six. So, I'm not saying it's completely cut and dried, but on balance I think unvendoring is better.

@tacaswell
Copy link
Member

closing in favor of #6556

This will land in master via one of the merge cascades.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants