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

Revert "Run against stable fsspec" #8618

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

phofl
Copy link
Collaborator

@phofl phofl commented Apr 11, 2024

Reverts #8615

@phofl phofl requested a review from fjetter as a code owner April 11, 2024 18:11
@martindurant
Copy link
Member

Please run again - my fork didn't contain the tags, so the version is wrong

@phofl phofl closed this Apr 11, 2024
@phofl phofl reopened this Apr 11, 2024
@martindurant
Copy link
Member

(there may be some caching going on, because pip install git+https://github.com/martindurant/filesystem_spec@post-version definitely gets fsspec-2024.3.1.post5+g529c084 for me)

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Apr 11, 2024

Unit Test Results

See test report for an extended history of previous test failures. This is useful for diagnosing flaky tests.

    29 files  ± 0      29 suites  ±0   11h 25m 21s ⏱️ + 9m 52s
 4 065 tests + 5   3 952 ✅ + 5    109 💤 ±0  4 ❌ ±0 
55 026 runs  +86  52 611 ✅ +90  2 410 💤  - 5  5 ❌ +1 

For more details on these failures, see this check.

Results for commit 4036ce3. ± Comparison against base commit 66ced13.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@phofl phofl closed this Apr 11, 2024
@phofl phofl reopened this Apr 11, 2024
@phofl
Copy link
Collaborator Author

phofl commented Apr 11, 2024

yeah there was definitely something in the cache, it should be gone now

@martindurant
Copy link
Member

The conflict is caused by:
    The user requested fsspec 2024.3.1.post5+g529c084 (from git+https://github.com/martindurant/filesystem_spec@post-version)
    dask 2024.4.1+4.gb2ec1e1a depends on fsspec>=2021.09.0
    s3fs 2024.3.1+2.g7ccc0a5 depends on fsspec==2024.3.1

Shouldn't this be OK? What instead is the right incantation, like fsspec~=2024.3.1

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.

None yet

2 participants