You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
@JungMinu Are you still planning on working on this issue? I am an Outreachy applicant and a newbie to Open Source. I have been visiting this issue with utmost excitement to see its outcome. Please comment if you're no longer interested.
Thanks!
I would request that people who already have contributions in the project please refrain from reserving new good first contribution issues. It makes the label considerably less useful for people looking for their actual first contribution.
(It's a bit different for a good first contribution issue that has been open for a while. If a good first contribution issue has been open for a few weeks, it's probably appropriate to remove the good first contribution label and submit a PR. But that's not the case here.)
This issue has been inactive for sufficiently long that it seems like perhaps it should be closed. Feel free to re-open (or leave a comment requesting that it be re-opened) if you disagree. I'm just tidying up and not acting on a super-strong opinion or anything like that.
Activity
tanujasawant commentedon Nov 3, 2016
@JungMinu Are you still planning on working on this issue? I am an Outreachy applicant and a newbie to Open Source. I have been visiting this issue with utmost excitement to see its outcome. Please comment if you're no longer interested.
Thanks!
Trott commentedon Nov 3, 2016
I would request that people who already have contributions in the project please refrain from reserving new
good first contributionissues. It makes the label considerably less useful for people looking for their actual first contribution.(It's a bit different for a
good first contributionissue that has been open for a while. If agood first contributionissue has been open for a few weeks, it's probably appropriate to remove thegood first contributionlabel and submit a PR. But that's not the case here.)tanujasawant commentedon Nov 4, 2016
@Trott Forgive me, I was unaware of the fact that people might still be looking for first contributions. I'll look for other issues. Thanks!
JungMinu commentedon Nov 4, 2016
@Trott Sorry, it was a mistake. I've just removed self-assignment
imatveev commentedon Nov 7, 2016
Added most of values in pull-request
imatveev commentedon Nov 9, 2016
Yet another pull-request
imatveev commentedon Nov 16, 2016
Yet another pull-request
62 remaining items
doc: argument types for dns methods
doc: missing argument types for events methods
doc: argument types for dns methods
doc: argument types for https methods
doc: http cleanup and missing argument types
doc: missing argument types for events methods
doc: argument types for crypto methods
doc: argument types for dns methods
doc: argument types for https methods
doc: argument types for https methods
doc: argument types for https methods
Trott commentedon Jul 15, 2017
This issue has been inactive for sufficiently long that it seems like perhaps it should be closed. Feel free to re-open (or leave a comment requesting that it be re-opened) if you disagree. I'm just tidying up and not acting on a super-strong opinion or anything like that.