packages or command line flows • If something is breaking, it will be considered a bug and reverted • Bug fixes will not be considered breaking, recipes and packages relying on the incorrect behavior the path. • In Windows, Python 3 installation can fail installing the wrapt dependency because of a bug in pip. Information about this issue and workarounds is available here: https://github.com/GrahamD pure C libraries). Although it could be argued that it is worth rebuilding with 4.9 too -to get fixes and performance improvements-. Let’s suppose that we don’t want to create 2 different binaries, but

packages or command line flows • If something is breaking, it will be considered a bug and reverted • Bug fixes will not be considered breaking, recipes and packages relying on the incorrect behavior the path. • In Windows, Python 3 installation can fail installing the wrapt dependency because of a bug in pip. Information about this issue and workarounds is available here: https://github.com/GrahamD pure C libraries). Although it could be argued that it is worth rebuilding with 4.9 too -to get fixes and performance improvements-. Let’s suppose that we don’t want to create 2 different binaries, but

packages or command line flows • If something is breaking, it will be considered a bug and reverted • Bug fixes will not be considered breaking, recipes and packages relying on the incorrect behavior the path. • In Windows, Python 3 installation can fail installing the wrapt dependency because of a bug in pip. Information about this issue and workarounds is available here: https://github.com/GrahamD pure C libraries). Although it could be argued that it is worth rebuilding with 4.9 too -to get fixes and performance improvements-. Let’s suppose that we don’t want to create 2 different binaries, but

packages or command line flows • If something is breaking, it will be considered a bug and reverted • Bug fixes will not be considered breaking, recipes and packages relying on the incorrect behavior the path. • In Windows, Python 3 installation can fail installing the wrapt dependency because of a bug in pip. Information about this issue and workarounds is available here: https://github.com/GrahamD pure C libraries). Although it could be argued that it is worth rebuilding with 4.9 too -to get fixes and performance improvements-. Let’s suppose that we don’t want to create 2 different binaries, but

packages or command line flows • If something is breaking, it will be considered a bug and reverted • Bug fixes will not be considered breaking, recipes and packages relying on the incorrect behavior the path. • In Windows, Python 3 installation can fail installing the wrapt dependency because of a bug in pip. Information about this issue and workarounds is available here: https://github.com/GrahamD pure C libraries). Although it could be argued that it is worth rebuilding with 4.9 too -to get fixes and performance improvements-. Let’s suppose that we don’t want to create 2 different binaries, but

packages or command line flows • If something is breaking, it will be considered a bug and reverted • Bug fixes will not be considered breaking, recipes and packages relying on the incorrect behavior the path. • In Windows, Python 3 installation can fail installing the wrapt dependency because of a bug in pip. Information about this issue and workarounds is available here: https://github.com/GrahamD pure C libraries). Although it could be argued that it is worth rebuilding with 4.9 too -to get fixes and performance improvements-. Let’s suppose that we don’t want to create 2 different binaries, but

is breaking, it will be considered a bug and reverted • Bug fixes will not be considered breaking, recipes and packages relying on the incorrect behavior of such bug will be considered already broken. the path. • Windows, Python 3 installation can fail installing the wrapt dependency because of a bug in pip. Information about this issue and workarounds is available here: https://github.com/GrahamD Documentation, Release 1.16.1 Although it could be argued that it is worth rebuilding with 4.9 too -to get fixes and performance improvements-. Let’s suppose that we don’t want to create 2 different binaries, but

is breaking, it will be considered a bug and reverted • Bug fixes will not be considered breaking, recipes and packages relying on the incorrect behavior of such bug will be considered already broken. the path. • Windows, Python 3 installation can fail installing the wrapt dependency because of a bug in pip. Information about this issue and workarounds is available here: https://github.com/GrahamD Documentation, Release 1.15.1 Although it could be argued that it is worth rebuilding with 4.9 too -to get fixes and performance improvements-. Let’s suppose that we don’t want to create 2 different binaries, but

packages or command line flows • If something is breaking, it will be considered a bug and reverted • Bug fixes will not be considered breaking, recipes and packages relying on the incorrect behavior the path. • In Windows, Python 3 installation can fail installing the wrapt dependency because of a bug in pip. Information about this issue and workarounds is available here: https://github.com/GrahamD pure C libraries). Although it could be argued that it is worth rebuilding with 4.9 too -to get fixes and performance improvements-. Let’s suppose that we don’t want to create 2 different binaries, but

packages or command line flows • If something is breaking, it will be considered a bug and reverted • Bug fixes will not be considered breaking, recipes and packages relying on the incorrect behavior the path. • In Windows, Python 3 installation can fail installing the wrapt dependency because of a bug in pip. Information about this issue and workarounds is available here: https://github.com/GrahamD pure C libraries). Although it could be argued that it is worth rebuilding with 4.9 too -to get fixes and performance improvements-. Let’s suppose that we don’t want to create 2 different binaries, but