Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (3.6@2d0c228). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

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 2d0c228...1952adf. Read the comment docs.

I think the plan is to make sure everything works fine on master first and then backport .travis.yml to maintenance branches.

I'm sorry. What remains?

Should I close this PR for now?

No need to close, but I'd wait for a couple days before merging these backports. See also http://bugs.python.org/issue29529.

So @berkerpeksag is right that I didn't backport any of this on purpose because I knew things like python/core-workflow#19 would come up when people more experienced than me in Travis usage would make suggestions. (I was also waiting for the IRC encryption stuff to land but I believe 4538ddc covers that specific issue.)

GH-74 has proposed changes to .travis.yml.

while GH-74 looks nice, I feel inconvenience for lack of travis check for 3.6 branch...

#74 has been merged. Please give me a couple days so I can make sure that I didn't cause any regression in our Travis configuration.

I did cherry pick changes in master.
Feel free to push merge button when you feels good.

Here's another one to be cherry-picked @methane :) c33ee85

Going ahead and merging this so we actually get CI on the maintenance branches :)