#674 was not sufficient to get Travis back up. Any comment on this one?

@aviau any feedback on whether this can be merged ?

@aviau @xginn8 @sebito91 any comment on this one?

I want to say I really appreciate being able to interact with influxdb from python and understand you are volunteers and are also involved in other projects (I read the README, I am not taking offense 😉, I hope you won't).

Yet a broken CI is even more discouraging than a lack of response. It pollutes otherwise nice PR like #650, and stalls others like #664 that you deemed ready to merge once CI is back online more than two month ago (CI has been down since last summer).

If you need help do not hesitate to reach out.

I can help too ! We rely on this library, and can help maintaining it if needed.

I should be able to take a look today, thanks for contributing!

Is there anything that can be done to speed up merging this? It seems to be stalling merging anything else.

@clslgrnc thank you for contributing, I really appreciate your time and effort here! Can you remove the extra influxdb test case and fix this all in separate PRs? As I understand it, there are three substantive changes combined into this one PR (which will be merged down to a single commit). These should all be different commits, and the tz_localize & officially supporting influxdb 1.7.2 changes should be included in the changelog for posterity.

Will do, note that the PRs will not pass CI since all commits are necessary.

Done.
I'll add support for more recent versions of python and influxdb once #682, #683, and #684 are merged (I do not want to go blind with a broken CI).

Any comment on #682, #683, or #684 ?

closing as this is superseded by #682, #683, and #684