[backport to 3.6] bpo-29529: Add .travis.yml to 3.6 branch

[methane]

No description provided.

[codecov]

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.

@@ Coverage Diff @@## 3.6 #25 +/- ## ====================================== Coverage ? 82.37% ====================================== Files ? 1427 Lines ? 350948 Branches ? 0 ====================================== Hits ? 289094 Misses ? 61854 Partials ? 0

---

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.

[berkerpeksag]

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

[methane]

I'm sorry. What remains?

[methane]

Should I close this PR for now?

[berkerpeksag]

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

[brettcannon]

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.)

[brettcannon]

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

[methane]

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

[berkerpeksag]

#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.

[methane]

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

[berkerpeksag]

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

[ncoghlan]

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