GeezerVison

All commit authors signed the Contributor License Agreement.

Most changes to Python require a NEWS entry. Add one using the blurb_it web app or the blurb command-line tool.

If this change has little impact on Python users, wait for a maintainer to apply the skip news label instead.

GH-118238 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.12 branch.

GH-118239 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.11 branch.

GH-118240 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.10 branch.

GH-118264 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.9 branch.

Could you also configure pre-commit? https://devguide.python.org/getting-started/setup-building/#install-pre-commit

Could you also configure pre-commit? https://devguide.python.org/getting-started/setup-building/#install-pre-commit

@nineteendo is there something in particular that you have noticed that pre-commit should have caught?

I have now setup pre-commit, redid the commits and the checks executed and resulted in exactly the same commit, without any diff / warnings / comments.

Is my .c code style incorrect and pre-commit not catching it?

This workflow failed: https://github.com/python/cpython/actions/runs/8823736225/job/24224829127#step:4:142
But I can't find the commit where it failed. Do you remember replacing the backticks?

This workflow failed: https://github.com/python/cpython/actions/runs/8823736225/job/24224829127#step:4:142 But I can't find the commit where it failed. Do you remember replacing the backticks?

yes, after the initial blurb-it there was comment about single ticks; which i replaced with double backticks and rewrote all commits in all branches/backports.

Is double-backticks appropriate formatting for the NEWS entry as currently seen on https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/118236/files ?

ps. maybe the blurb-it service needs pre-commit checking / checks for single backticks.

note, the up to date re-runs of actions are all passing on this pull request.

and rewrote all commits in all branches/backports.

Did you do a rebase or delete the old branch? Because I can't find that commit.

Is double-backticks appropriate formatting

Looks like it, '``--[^`]+``' is used 294 times, and '``--[^`]+=[^`]+``' 25 times.

maybe the blurb-it service needs pre-commit checking / checks for single backticks.

Yeah, I was thinking that too.

and rewrote all commits in all branches/backports.

Did you do a rebase or delete the old branch? Because I can't find that commit.

rebase, all commits are documented in this PR. If you use web-ui or extensive API, you can see these mentions:

@xnox xnox force-pushed the fix-nodefault-md5 branch from 7a5adff to 092ab97
2 weeks ago

@xnox force-pushed the fix-nodefault-md5 branch from 092ab97 to a47a53f
2 weeks ago

You can click on those commits to still see them dangling and not part of any branch or pull request.

7a5adff was the blurb-it service generated entry.

a47a53f is the current state of this pull request, which was fixed-up with double backticks.

a better design is available in:

• gh-127298: When in FIPS mode ensure builtin hashes check for usedforsecurity=False #127301