See #158 for more. cc @jaitaiwan

Darn this looks promising. I'll have to check mine again, because I think I opted for breaking py2x compatibility in favour if py3k. Once I've rebased my PR we'll see if the tests pass or fail.

@mitchellrj reckon you'd be keen on rebasing your PR? See if your tests are still passing.

I'm unable to work on this right now, I will try to take a look sometime in
August.
On 29 Jul 2015 12:36 pm, "Daniel Holmes" notifications@github.com wrote:

Darn this looks promising. I'll have to check mine again, because I think
I opted for breaking py2x compatibility in favour if py3k. Once I've
rebased my PR we'll see if the tests pass or fail.

@mitchellrj https://github.com/mitchellrj reckon you'd be keen on
rebasing your PR? See if your tests are still passing.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#125 (comment)
.

I'll see if I can rebase and check the tests are passing or not.

Here's the results of the rebase and test against py3k in travis: https://travis-ci.org/CentricWebEstate/python-oauth2/builds/75876246

So great to see that it still passes on 2k but 3k's going to need some work.

Thanks for everyone who contributed to getting py3k out the door. Closing this as it is resolved by release 1.9