Skip to content

Revert backport of #21631 to v3.5.0-doc #21824

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 3, 2021

Conversation

QuLogic
Copy link
Member

@QuLogic QuLogic commented Dec 1, 2021

PR Summary

This PR renames a tutorial, and thus needs to update a link in a .py file. Changes to .py files have no effect on the -doc branch, because it is run against the released version, so this breaks the build since the old link is gone.

This reverts commit 37131e9.

PR Checklist

Tests and Styling

  • [n/a] Has pytest style unit tests (and pytest passes).
  • Is Flake 8 compliant (install flake8-docstrings and run flake8 --docstring-convention=all).

Documentation

  • [n/a] New features are documented, with examples if plot related.
  • [n/a] New features have an entry in doc/users/next_whats_new/ (follow instructions in README.rst there).
  • [n/a] API changes documented in doc/api/next_api_changes/ (follow instructions in README.rst there).
  • Documentation is sphinx and numpydoc compliant (the docs should build without error).

@QuLogic QuLogic added this to the v3.5-doc milestone Dec 1, 2021
@QuLogic
Copy link
Member Author

QuLogic commented Dec 1, 2021

The Basic usage guide backport also appears to have broken things. I have half a mind to force-push these backports away, since this isn't main.

@jklymak
Copy link
Member

jklymak commented Dec 1, 2021

Oh, thats confusing. Sorry for the breakage, and of course feel free to revert what is needed.

@jklymak
Copy link
Member

jklymak commented Dec 1, 2021

... that is even more confusing, as the back ports passed CI - I guess its not worth having a different CI for these branches, but...

@tacaswell
Copy link
Member

We do not run the link-checker as part of CI and the CI does not try to install the released version.

Given that we now have a handful of git-related checks on GHA, I suspect would could set up a check that asserts nothing in the lib or src directories are changed on *-doc branches.

@tacaswell
Copy link
Member

I'm mixed on force-pushing to -doc. On one hand I'm against doing it as a bit of a social / process control thing. "do not force push to the matplotlib/matplotlib repo" is a very easy rule to understand and enforce. But we have broken 2x in the last 5 years (once "for real" and once kinda-sorta-language-lawyer-maybe-not) so it is actually "do not force push to the matplotlib/matplotlib repo except in extenuating circumstances" which is fuzzier. Doing it here would be another step down the path to normalizing force-pushing to matplotlib/matplotlib (slippery slope etc etc) so we should not.

On the other hand, there is no reason to keep commits + their reversions around, this is not main and I strongly suspect that @QuLogic is the only person in the world that currently has it as a local branch so just do the simple thing and move on.

I'm pretty 50/50 on this and am OK with either option.

@QuLogic
Copy link
Member Author

QuLogic commented Dec 1, 2021

Fixing the usage guide is less work than I thought (only one line), but now I see other stuff was merged, so I'll need to check that that is okay.

@jklymak
Copy link
Member

jklymak commented Dec 1, 2021

I think there was only #21813 and #21815...

This PR renames a tutorial, and thus needs to updtae a link in a .py
file. Changes to .py files have no effect on the -doc branch, because it
is run against the released version, so this breaks the build since the
old link is gone.

This reverts commit 37131e9.
@QuLogic QuLogic merged commit db35fd7 into matplotlib:v3.5.0-doc Dec 3, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants