On 15 November 2014 21:22, Jeremy Stanley <fu...@yuggoth.org> wrote:
> On 2014-11-15 20:38:02 +0000 (+0000), Dave Walker wrote:
>> You are right, I accidently folded two issues into 1.  However, I do
>> not understand how we can resolve this issue the way you have outlined
>> without introducing a new minimum version on unittest2, which was not
>> previously a requirement on stable/*.
>> This surely has the same effect that I outlined?
> You only need a new unittest2 if you're using a new testtools. The
> argument that we're introducing a newer requirement there is
> somewhat circular. If you're installing with distro packages of
> testtools and unittest2 then presumably your distro has pre-selected
> versions of them which are known to interoperate?
> --
> Jeremy Stanley

Ah, Good Point.  I (wrongly?) assumed we were looking to put a minimum
version of unittest2 in requirements.  Which would cause this
undesired behaviour.  However, that doesn't need to be the case.  I
assume with this approach we WILL put an upperbound on unittest2 in
stable/* requirements?

If so - my point is mute. Pah.

Kind Regards,
Dave Walker

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to