CLN: type annotations
Separating these out from the non-CLN work going on in/around these functions.
> Just as a general comment I think it would be better to fully annotate some methods rather than partially annotating a lot of methods.

That's reasonable.  How strong is this preference?  i.e. when weighed against "its nice to do these separately from the other PR that makes non-typing changes in the same functions to have a simpler diff" > > Just as a general comment I think it would be better to fully annotate some methods rather than partially annotating a lot of methods.
> 
> That's reasonable. How strong is this preference? i.e. when weighed against "its nice to do these separately from the other PR that makes non-typing changes in the same functions to have a simpler diff"

I would rather merge quickly on correct changes that are non-controversial, rather block things. so actually happy to type the 'easy' things (of course nice for newcomers to do this too). FWIW I’m not blocking on this just have reviewed thoroughly. Feel free to merge if happy with it

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 2, 2019, at 8:34 AM, Jeff Reback <notifications@github.com> wrote:
> 
> ﻿
> Just as a general comment I think it would be better to fully annotate some methods rather than partially annotating a lot of methods.
> 
> That's reasonable. How strong is this preference? i.e. when weighed against "its nice to do these separately from the other PR that makes non-typing changes in the same functions to have a simpler diff"
> 
> I would rather merge quickly on correct changes that are non-controversial, rather block things. so actually happy to type the 'easy' things (of course nice for newcomers to do this too).
> 
> —
> You are receiving this because you commented.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
 green gentle ping.  a couple of upcoming branches are going to have merge conflicts with this otherwise thanks