Alex Nitz
Alex Nitz
@cdcapano I'll be out of contact, so can @cdcapano you review this after @labani-01 has updated it to address the issues.
@lpsinger That's something you and @titodalcanton will likely need to discuss. As far as I know, 3.9 is till required to be supported for the low latency analysis in pycbc....
@titodalcanton What is the plan for moving pycbc live off of 3.9? Can we drop 3.9 in pycbc (at least for testing if not officially).
@titodalcanton Please go ahead. I'm also testing out a simpler change in #4922.
#4922 supersedes this for now.
@aleynaakyuz Can you please rebase this PR from master and check on the code climate report afterwards?
@WuShichao Can you verify your case as well, to see that you no longer have this restriction?
@aleynaakyuz You'll need to rebase this PR and make sure the unittests pass along with the code climate report (found as a link towards the bottom of the checks).
I think this is fine. The main issue is making sure people then add long-term labels to planning things and 'bug' as appropriate.
Is there any more information on the motivation for this PR? I'm not sure how I feel about linking version of the *pycbc library* information into a file like this.