chore!: drop Python 3.5 & 3.6 support#43
Merged
texastony merged 6 commits intoaws:masterfrom Jan 24, 2023
Merged
Conversation
ajewellamz
previously approved these changes
Jan 17, 2023
Closed
josecorella
previously approved these changes
Jan 17, 2023
6eada3c
Contributor
Author
|
I will need to Squash and Merge this as a breaking change, Also, I will need remove the Python 3.5 & 3.6 branch protections. This library is very simple... it seems silly to drop Python 2.7 support until we can not test it in CI. |
josecorella
reviewed
Jan 24, 2023
josecorella
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2023
Contributor
Author
|
Removing Branch protection rules for 3.5 & 3.6. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issue #, if available: Broken CI/Drop Python 3.5 & 3.6
We should be able to approve First Time contributors to run CI actions, like in #41, but we cannot, possibly b/c we do not have a CODEOWNERS file.
Description of changes: add a code owner file.
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.