Skip to content

bpo-5028: fix doc bug for tokenize #11683

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 30, 2019

Conversation

andrewnc
Copy link
Contributor

@andrewnc andrewnc commented Jan 26, 2019

@the-knights-who-say-ni
Copy link

Hello, and thanks for your contribution!

I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept your contribution by verifying you have signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA).

Unfortunately we couldn't find an account corresponding to your GitHub username on bugs.python.org (b.p.o) to verify you have signed the CLA (this might be simply due to a missing "GitHub Name" entry in your b.p.o account settings). This is necessary for legal reasons before we can look at your contribution. Please follow the steps outlined in the CPython devguide to rectify this issue.

You can check yourself to see if the CLA has been received.

Thanks again for your contribution, we look forward to reviewing it!

Copy link
Contributor

@eamanu eamanu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. Please, sign CLA. News could be skipped here.

@andrewnc
Copy link
Contributor Author

andrewnc commented Jan 28, 2019 via email

@asottile
Copy link
Contributor

I think the "continuation lines are included" bit should be dropped from the doc as well (since it's irrelevant for physical lines)

@csabella
Copy link
Contributor

@andrewnc, thank you for your first contribution to CPython! 🎉

@asottile
Copy link
Contributor

I think the "continuation lines are included" bit should be dropped from the doc as well (since it's irrelevant for physical lines)

@csabella oh, I was hoping this would get addressed as part of this PR -- oh well :)

@csabella
Copy link
Contributor

@asottile, yes, I probably should have requested that change before merging, but I didn't want to drag this one out. If you can, please open another PR with that change and I'll see if we can get a quick review on it. Thanks!

@asottile
Copy link
Contributor

@csabella sounds good! done here: #13686 🎉

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants