<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Jul 8, 2015 7:18 PM, "Robert Collins" <<a href="mailto:robertc@robertcollins.net">robertc@robertcollins.net</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On 9 July 2015 at 06:29, Joseph Smith <<a href="mailto:yasumoto7@gmail.com">yasumoto7@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > dstufft: naive question- but would you upgrade the version of mock you use?<br>
> > (especially considering python2.6 is (supposedly?) EOL)<br>
> ><br>
> > FWIW getting these improvements into the standalone mock package would be<br>
> > awesome- thanks for picking it up Robert!<br>
><br>
> NP :).<br>
><br>
> Its at <a href="https://github.com/testing-cabal/mock">https://github.com/testing-cabal/mock</a> btw - i've pushed up the<br>
> 3.4 fix, next push will be all the backports, then doc fixes, then a<br>
> release.<br>
><br>
> @Donald, @Ian : the question isn't 'will there be a mock available for<br>
> 2.6', its 'do you need a mock that *changes* for 2.6' ?<br>
><br>
> E.g. you could just use markers to split out mock like so:<br>
> mock<1.1 ; python_version=='2.6'<br>
> mock ; python_version!='2.6'<br>
><br>
> I think I'm going to go forward with raising the minimum *tested*<br>
> version for 1.1 and above to 2.7: I won't deliberate break compat, but<br>
> I'm going to not know if I break compat either. I will document<br>
> clearly that this is the case.<br>
><br>
> -Rob<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Robert Collins <<a href="mailto:rbtcollins@hp.com">rbtcollins@hp.com</a>><br>
> Distinguished Technologist<br>
> HP Converged Cloud</p>
<p dir="ltr">That's how I read it at first but Donald confused me. I should be okay to cap the version for 2.6.</p>