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 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
