Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Drop official python 3.5 support #686

Closed

Conversation

BenjaminBossan
Copy link
Collaborator

Comes down to no longer integrating it in CI. Add Python 3.8 though.

Also: Remove a FutureWarning in LRScheduler.

BenjaminBossan added 2 commits August 30, 2020 12:59
Comes down to no longer integrating it in CI. Add Python 3.8 though.
@BenjaminBossan BenjaminBossan self-assigned this Aug 30, 2020
@BenjaminBossan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

NB: Merging this PR is not urgent, since we just had the 0.9.0 release. But it should be done before the 0.10.0 release.

BenjaminBossan added 2 commits August 30, 2020 15:29
Warning is no longer being raised.
@thomasjpfan
Copy link
Member

We likely want to keep python 3.5 in the CI around for bug fixes in 0.9.x and merge right before 0.10.0 gets released.

@BenjaminBossan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

We likely want to keep python 3.5 in the CI around for bug fixes in 0.9.x and merge right before 0.10.0 gets released.

I wouldn't merge too late either because we want to catch bugs with Python 3.8 (or add it in a separate PR, but then CI will be very slow).

@ottonemo
Copy link
Member

We should also think about updating the base distribution from xenial to focal (or at least bionic).
I don't think xenial as a base distribution is representative for the developer machines out there.

@BenjaminBossan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

We should also think about updating the base distribution from xenial to focal

Good point, updated to focal.

@BenjaminBossan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I added PyTorch 1.7.0 to travis while removing 1.3.1.

@BenjaminBossan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@ottonemo This is pretty much obsolete after moving to github actions. Still some of the changes here should be moved to a new PR, right?

@BenjaminBossan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Superseded by move to github actions and #733

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants