晋太元中,武陵人捕鱼为业。缘溪行,忘路之远近。忽逢桃花林,夹岸数百步,中无杂树,芳草鲜美,落英缤纷。渔人甚异之,复前行,欲穷其林。 林尽水源,便得一山,山有小口,仿佛若有光。便舍船,从口入。初极狭,才通人。复行数十步,豁然开朗。土地平旷,屋舍俨然,有良田、美池、桑竹之属。阡陌交通,鸡犬相闻。其中往来种作,男女衣着,悉如外人。黄发垂髫,并怡然自乐。 见渔人,乃大惊,问所从来。具答之。便要还家,设酒杀鸡作食。村中闻有此人,咸来问讯。自云先世避秦时乱,率妻子邑人来此绝境,不复出焉,遂与外人间隔。问今是何世,乃不知有汉,无论魏晋。此人一一为具言所闻,皆叹惋。余人各复延至其家,皆出酒食。停数日,辞去。此中人语云:“不足为外人道也。”(间隔 一作:隔绝) 既出,得其船,便扶向路,处处志之。及郡下,诣太守,说如此。太守即遣人随其往,寻向所志,遂迷,不复得路。 南阳刘子骥,高尚士也,闻之,欣然规往。未果,寻病终。后遂无问津者。
|
Server : Apache System : Linux srv.rainic.com 4.18.0-553.47.1.el8_10.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Apr 2 05:45:37 EDT 2025 x86_64 User : rainic ( 1014) PHP Version : 7.4.33 Disable Function : exec,passthru,shell_exec,system Directory : /usr/share/doc/python3-cryptography/docs/development/ |
Upload File : |
Reviewing and merging patches ============================= Everyone is encouraged to review open pull requests. We only ask that you try and think carefully, ask questions and are `excellent to one another`_. Code review is our opportunity to share knowledge, design ideas and make friends. When reviewing a patch try to keep each of these concepts in mind: Intent ------ * What is the change being proposed? * Do we want this feature or is the bug they're fixing really a bug? Architecture ------------ * Is the proposed change being made in the correct place? Is it a fix in a backend when it should be in the primitives? Implementation -------------- * Does the change do what the author claims? * Are there sufficient tests? * Has it been documented? * Will this change introduce new bugs? Grammar and style ----------------- These are small things that are not caught by the automated style checkers. * Does a variable need a better name? * Should this be a keyword argument? Merge requirements ------------------ Because cryptography is so complex, and the implications of getting it wrong so devastating, ``cryptography`` has a strict merge policy for committers: * Patches must *never* be pushed directly to ``master``, all changes (even the most trivial typo fixes!) must be submitted as a pull request. * A committer may *never* merge their own pull request, a second party must merge their changes. If multiple people work on a pull request, it must be merged by someone who did not work on it. * A patch that breaks tests, or introduces regressions by changing or removing existing tests should not be merged. Tests must always be passing on ``master``. * If somehow the tests get into a failing state on ``master`` (such as by a backwards incompatible release of a dependency) no pull requests may be merged until this is rectified. * All merged patches must have 100% test coverage. The purpose of these policies is to minimize the chances we merge a change that jeopardizes our users' security. .. _`excellent to one another`: https://speakerdeck.com/ohrite/better-code-review