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

Remove binary __slots__ values #223

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 5, 2016
Merged

Conversation

jayvdb
Copy link
Contributor

@jayvdb jayvdb commented Apr 5, 2016

They are not Python 3 compatible

They are not Python 3 compatible
@jayvdb
Copy link
Contributor Author

jayvdb commented Apr 5, 2016

fwiw, I have a Python 3 branch which still has a lot of failures during py.test, but isnt too far away from being usable, if only to prevent further regressions.

@jayvdb
Copy link
Contributor Author

jayvdb commented Apr 5, 2016

hmm. seem travis isnt providing builds for PRs.
Here is my travis build of this commit: https://travis-ci.org/jayvdb/spreads/builds/120844859

@jbaiter jbaiter merged commit 9f79a41 into DIYBookScanner:master Apr 5, 2016
@jbaiter
Copy link
Member

jbaiter commented Apr 5, 2016

I vaguely remember there being a reason for those explicit bytestrings, but I honestly cannot remember any more :/ But the tests are all passing, so we should be good :-)
Weird about Travis, I'll have to check the configuration, thank you for pointing that out.

However, which Python 3 version are you targeting with your branch? Starting with Python 3.4 the bytestring literal syntax is supported again.

Thank you for your work, Python 3 compatibility has been on my radar for a while, glad to see someone taking the initiative on it :-) If you notice some of my other packages that spreads depends on (chdkptp.py, gphoto2-cffi, jpegtran-cffi, etc) having trouble with Python3, please open an issue on the relevant project and I'll take care of it.

@jayvdb
Copy link
Contributor Author

jayvdb commented Apr 5, 2016

Im targetting 3.4+ initially.

Good to know you're keen, and willing to merge preliminary patches.

Will push a working .travis.yml with 3.4 in the matrix asap, so it is on everyones radar.

@jbaiter
Copy link
Member

jbaiter commented Apr 5, 2016

If it's not too much hassle for you, I'd prefer it if you collected all Py3-related changes in a single pull request that I can review from time to time and then merge once all the tests are passing on Python 2.7 and Python 3.4.

@jayvdb
Copy link
Contributor Author

jayvdb commented Apr 5, 2016

I'd prefer to get a few of the basic underlying build problems fixed with early PRs. e.g. this one and #224 , where you'll know better than I can if the basic fix is probably ok, but real world testing is also going to be needed.

As for the actual code changes, I'll do a clean series, and you can identify any that you'd like me to submit as PRs early, if any.

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.

2 participants