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

Add a --no-skip-missing-interpreters option #633

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Add a --no-skip-missing-interpreters option #633

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

asottile
Copy link
Contributor

Resolves #631

@asottile
Copy link
Contributor Author

I wasn't sure whether to use versionadded or versionchanged, shrugs!

@obestwalter
Copy link
Member

I dunno if this is really necessary.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 15, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #633 into master will increase coverage by 0.08%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #633      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.86%   93.95%   +0.08%     
==========================================
  Files          11       11              
  Lines        2364     2365       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits         2219     2222       +3     
+ Misses        145      143       -2
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
tox/config.py 97.58% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
tox/_verlib.py 83.15% <0%> (+2.1%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1a2ee97...e283190. Read the comment docs.

@obestwalter obestwalter added the needs:discussion It's not quite clear if and how this should be done label Sep 15, 2017
@obestwalter
Copy link
Member

see #634 for dicussion.

@asottile
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thought you closed this, I'll do it!

@asottile asottile closed this Sep 16, 2017
@asottile asottile deleted the no_skip_interpreters branch September 16, 2017 01:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
needs:discussion It's not quite clear if and how this should be done
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants