On 5/22/2018 8:37 AM, Andrew Svetlov wrote: > Sorry for that. > I thought that the bpo issue can be skipped because it is tests-only > change, no asyncio code was affected. > Will be more accurate next time. A new issue was not needed. Adding 'bpo-33531' would have been fine, automatically linking the issue and the PR in both directions. -- Terry Jan Reedy
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4