<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Jul 8, 2015 6:33 AM, "Donald Stufft" <<a href="mailto:donald@stufft.io">donald@stufft.io</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On July 8, 2015 at 4:00:48 AM, Robert Collins (<a href="mailto:robertc@robertcollins.net">robertc@robertcollins.net</a>) wrote:<br>
> > I'm backporting the changes in cPython to mock to the mock standalone<br>
> > package. There's various cleanups, some of which would break compat<br>
> > for 2.6. I've already thrown < 2.6 under the bus, but 2.6 is sitting<br>
> > in a grey area.... its doable but its still got quite some ugly (in<br>
> > particular 'nested' which only exists on 2.6 these days).<br>
> ><br>
> > If noone jumps in with:<br>
> > "I use mock, on 2.6, and I'm willing to do the work in a timely manner<br>
> > to backport any future changes from cPython that are problematic on<br>
> > 2.6"<br>
> ><br>
> > then its going under the bus:) I'll do the initial backport, but I'm<br>
> > looking for a time commitment from someone(s) to deal with future<br>
> > ports on an as-needed basis. By which I mean, when I go to port, and<br>
> > its gnarly, I want to be able to drop someone an email and have<br>
> > turnaround time of oh, say, a week.<br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
> pip uses mock and still cares about 2.6.<br>
><br>
> ---<br>
> Donald Stufft<br>
> PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> testing-in-python mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:testing-in-python@lists.idyll.org">testing-in-python@lists.idyll.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/testing-in-python">http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/testing-in-python</a></p>
<p dir="ltr">I too use mock a lot on 2.6.</p>