On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 18:48:42 +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17 2018, Edward Lopez-Acosta
> wrote:
> > Should py-aiohttp be updated first to allow this to match upstream
> > as users may expect?
> >
> > I know there are many dependants on that though so might be a bit
> >
https://github.com/ambv/black/blob/master/README.md#blackd
Looks like it's to avoid python overhead when running this repeatedly.
I am fine both ways, but was curious.
On December 17, 2018 5:48:42 PM UTC, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas
wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 17 2018, Edward Lopez-Acosta
>wrote:
>>
On Mon, Dec 17 2018, Edward Lopez-Acosta wrote:
> Should py-aiohttp be updated first to allow this to match upstream as users
> may expect?
>
> I know there are many dependants on that though so might be a bit of work.
> Will save extra work on black in the future too, along with anything else
Should py-aiohttp be updated first to allow this to match upstream as users may
expect?
I know there are many dependants on that though so might be a bit of work. Will
save extra work on black in the future too, along with anything else that may
need py-aiohttp updated.
Hi,
Here's a diff to update the port to the latest release.
Upstream thought it was a good idea to add a webserver for this code
formatter: https://github.com/ambv/black#blackd
Sadly I think our py-aiohttp is too old for this stuff so I just
disabled the installation of the "binary".
We can
