use the regular readme for the long description

[graingert]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (78c55aa) 99.64% compared to head (013ac66) 99.64%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #2866   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.64%   99.64%           
=======================================
  Files         117      117           
  Lines       17634    17634           
  Branches     3172     3172           
=======================================
  Hits        17572    17572           
  Misses         43       43           
  Partials       19       19           

[A5rocks]

Personally I like having a customized version of README for pypi even if it has caused issues due be being out of sync in the past.

(people seeing trio in pypi have different goals than people seeing trio on github. but idk if we adequately address that as is...)

[Fuyukai]

Genuinely, do people ever actually read the pypi readmes? I nearly always just click through to the repository instead (usually because the readme is outdated and wrong).

[A5rocks]

-snip- huh I can't find an archived page to support my memory so I was probably just misremembering. But I do think I agree that they aren't looked at much...

[A5rocks]

OK I've come around on this, I agree with @Fuyukai that nobody really looks at these and that any upkeep burden is too much.

[A5rocks]

Do we really need to specify content-type?

[CoolCat467]

I think it's best practice, but I am not certain.

[CoolCat467]

I think this makes sense