Release 1.9.1 #993
Release 1.9.1 #993
Conversation
BobbyMcWho
force-pushed
the
release-1_9_1
branch
from
2afb555
to
6ed88e7
Compare
|
Do you know why Travis is failing? It seems odd, though. Is it passing locally? |
|
It's not passing locally, rack 2.1.0 and 2.2.0 included some changes that broke a few tests. |
|
I think a better option would be to lock down the rack version used for the tests. It doesn't make sense that a simple change like this breaks the build, just because there is a newer version of rack that is not compatible with our code. Can you lock it down to the version that works? That way master will be green without having to change the tests. |
|
Becuase rack is a co-dependency of this package and a ton of others, I don't want to artificially limit the version of rack if possible. We should only pin it if rack actually merges changes that will fundamentally affect the way this package's code functions |
|
Makes sense. But I also don't want to merge this PR when it will lead to a "broken" master. Could you open a new PR with the test fixes, so we merge that one first? |
|
Yup, I'm at Lonestar Elixir conf currently, so it'll be a few days most likely til I can look at it |
|
Nice! Have fun! |
|
@supernova32 can you approve this? I think the coverage check is based on master branch, and so I can't get passed it even though I haven't changed anything that should be tested. |
Have to do this via PR, since the branch is protected.