Thanks, Mike. Let me know if you want to me to do any refactoring but I tend to agree that it's low priority.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Mike Naberezny <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Roger, > > > On 11/24/09 12:07 PM, Roger Hoover wrote: > >> Thanks for offering to make the changes. I certainly don't mind if you >> want to do it. I imagine you're very busy, though. Let me know if you >> have the time and desire. Otherwise, I can do it. >> > > I'll do as you suggest and put a conditional around them so we can get the > next release out. > > This is low priority so I will add a note to the TODO list about making > those tests run under 2.3 and I will take care of it eventually. There are > some issues I should fix ahead of this but I'm happy to do it. > > > So, do you want to avoid using mock all together or can we just avoid >> using the decorator stuff? >> > > I like the mock package. Compatibility with 2.3 is the only issue. If we > get it to run under 2.3 then I think it's fine. > > > Thanks, > Mike > > -- > Mike Naberezny > Maintainable Software > http://maintainable.com >
_______________________________________________ Supervisor-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.supervisord.org/mailman/listinfo/supervisor-users
