Skip to content

Conversation

@JulienPalard
Copy link
Member

From: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/docs/2018-December/038529.html

Not sure about the wording, can a native-english proofread this? :)

@csabella
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM. The wording conveys your meaning, so I think it's fine. If you wanted to be a little more formal, you can use Prior to 3.6, the behavior was always strict., but I don't know if it's necessary.

@pablogsal
Copy link
Member

pablogsal commented Dec 29, 2018

LGTM but I also like @csabella suggestion, although I am fine either way :)

@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @JulienPalard for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.7.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

miss-islington pushed a commit to miss-islington/cpython that referenced this pull request May 8, 2019
@bedevere-bot
Copy link

GH-13190 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.7 branch.

miss-islington added a commit that referenced this pull request May 8, 2019
@JulienPalard JulienPalard deleted the pathlib-resolve-was-strict branch June 16, 2019 14:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

docs Documentation in the Doc dir skip issue skip news

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants