Skip to content
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

remote: use -d in s3 example #902

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 7, 2020
Merged

remote: use -d in s3 example #902

merged 2 commits into from
Jan 7, 2020

Conversation

efiop
Copy link
Contributor

@efiop efiop commented Jan 6, 2020

User complained that local one has -d but s3 doesn't.

Disregard the recommendations below if you use Edit on GitHub button to improve the docs in place.

❗ Please read the guidelines in the Contributing to the Documentation list if you make any substantial changes to the documentation or JS engine.

🐛 Please make sure to mention Fix #issue (if applicable) in the description of the PR. This enables GitHub to link the PR to the corresponding bug and close it automatically when PR is merged.

Thank you for the contribution - we'll try to review and merge it as soon as possible. 🙏

User complained that local one has `-d` but s3 doesn't.
@shcheklein shcheklein temporarily deployed to dvc-landing-efiop-patch-wjfqm7 January 6, 2020 17:11 Inactive
@shcheklein shcheklein temporarily deployed to dvc-landing-efiop-patch-wjfqm7 January 7, 2020 20:40 Inactive
@efiop efiop requested a review from shcheklein January 7, 2020 20:47
@shcheklein shcheklein merged commit 7c180ee into master Jan 7, 2020
@efiop efiop deleted the efiop-patch-1 branch January 9, 2020 01:09
@jorgeorpinel
Copy link
Contributor

jorgeorpinel commented Jan 12, 2020

Thinking about it, I'm not sure why we wanted to change this example over a single user's feedback. I think having significantly different examples is a good thing. Maybe we should revert?

jorgeorpinel added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 12, 2020
@jorgeorpinel
Copy link
Contributor

jorgeorpinel commented Jan 12, 2020

Maybe we should revert?

I'm improving the remote index examples (including reverting this -d) in 00f4751. Feel free to review (in #915).

UPDATE: And 8b1c720

@efiop
Copy link
Contributor Author

efiop commented Jan 13, 2020

@jorgeorpinel Not worth reverting in my opinion. This PR just made it consistent within one doc. I think that complaint was a reasonable one.

@jorgeorpinel
Copy link
Contributor

Understood, but I've already rewritten the examples of that doc anyway, please see #915 (review). Thanks!

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