iSharkFly-Open
/
python-peps
mirror of https://github.com/python/peps.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

PEP 512: Resolve uses of the default role (#3399)

This commit is contained in:
Adam Turner 2023-09-01 20:27:07 +01:00 committed by GitHub
parent a1a1346fb8
commit 5fcb01a22c
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

8
pep-0512.txt
View File

@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ the basic steps were:
Rietveld code review tool [#rietveld]_. Rietveld code review tool [#rietveld]_.
6. Download the patch to make sure it still applies cleanly. 6. Download the patch to make sure it still applies cleanly.
7. Run the test suite manually. 7. Run the test suite manually.
8. Update the `NEWS`, `ACKS`, and "What's New" document as necessary 8. Update the ``NEWS``, ``ACKS``, and "What's New" document as necessary
9. Pull changes to avoid a merge race. 9. Pull changes to avoid a merge race.
10. Commit the change manually. 10. Commit the change manually.
11. If the change was for a bugfix release, merge into the 11. If the change was for a bugfix release, merge into the
@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ in the Knights Who Say Ni project [#ni]_.
Make old repository read-only Make old repository read-only
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Updating `.hg/hgrc` in the now-old Mercurial repository in the `[hooks]` Updating ``.hg/hgrc`` in the now-old Mercurial repository in the ``[hooks]``
section with:: section with::
pretxnchangegroup.reject = echo " * This repo has been migrated to github.com/python/peps and does not accept new commits in Mercurial!" 2>&1; exit 1 pretxnchangegroup.reject = echo " * This repo has been migrated to github.com/python/peps and does not accept new commits in Mercurial!" 2>&1; exit 1
@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ http://docs.openstack.org/developer/reno/.
Discussions at the Sep 2016 Python core-dev sprints led to this Discussions at the Sep 2016 Python core-dev sprints led to this
decision compared to the rejected approaches outlined in the decision compared to the rejected approaches outlined in the
`Rejected Ideas` section of this PEP. The separate files approach ``Rejected Ideas`` section of this PEP. The separate files approach
seems to have the right balance of flexibility and potential tooling seems to have the right balance of flexibility and potential tooling
out of the various options while solving the motivating problem. out of the various options while solving the motivating problem.
@ -772,7 +772,7 @@ Optional features:
- `Link web content back to files that it is generated from`_ - `Link web content back to files that it is generated from`_
- `Handling Misc/NEWS`_ - `Handling Misc/NEWS`_
- `Bot to generate cherry-pick pull requests`_ - `Bot to generate cherry-pick pull requests`_
- Write `.github/CONTRIBUTING.md` - Write ``.github/CONTRIBUTING.md``
(to prevent PRs that are inappropriate from even showing up and pointing to the devguide) (to prevent PRs that are inappropriate from even showing up and pointing to the devguide)