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

Better explain role of existing requirements.txt #1369

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 27, 2021
Merged

Better explain role of existing requirements.txt #1369

merged 2 commits into from
Apr 27, 2021

Conversation

mikepqr
Copy link
Contributor

@mikepqr mikepqr commented Mar 28, 2021

This commit adds an explanation of the role of existing requirements.txt
files to the README.

I found this very unclear and opened #1358 because of my confusion. The
existing short note that requirements.txt "might interfere" didn't
really help me. I'm not sure how common my confusion is, but I hope my
changes makes things clearer to new users (assuming what I've written is
in fact correct!)

(In addition to my additions, I moved the "Updating requirements"
section up in the doc, since it seems like a core workflow.)

Changelog-friendly one-liner:

Contributor checklist
  • Provided the tests for the changes.
  • Gave a clear one-line description in the PR (that the maintainers can add to CHANGELOG.md on release).
  • Assign the PR to an existing or new milestone for the target version (following Semantic Versioning).

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 28, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #1369 (690a89e) into master (34f1b9d) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1369   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.67%   99.67%           
=======================================
  Files          33       33           
  Lines        3037     3037           
  Branches      327      327           
=======================================
  Hits         3027     3027           
  Misses          5        5           
  Partials        5        5           

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 34f1b9d...690a89e. Read the comment docs.

README.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@atugushev atugushev added the docs Documentation related label Mar 31, 2021
Copy link
Member

@atugushev atugushev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM 👍

@atugushev atugushev added the enhancement Improvements to functionality label Apr 22, 2021
@atugushev atugushev added this to the 6.2.0 milestone Apr 22, 2021
mikepqr and others added 2 commits April 24, 2021 16:27
This commit adds an explanation of the role of existing requirements.txt
files to the README.

I found this very unclear and opened #1358 because of my confusion. The
existing short note that requirements.txt "might interfere" didn't
really help me. I'm not sure how common my confusion is, but I hope my
changes makes things clearer to new users (assuming what I've written is
in fact correct!)

(In addition to my additions, I moved the "Updating requirements"
section up in the doc, since it seems like a core workflow.)
@atugushev atugushev merged commit e8982fb into jazzband:master Apr 27, 2021
@atugushev
Copy link
Member

Thanks @mikepqr 🙏🏻

@mikepqr
Copy link
Contributor Author

mikepqr commented Apr 27, 2021

Thank you for your help!

@atugushev atugushev changed the title Better explain role of existing requirements.txt Better explain role of existing requirements.txt Jun 21, 2021
@atugushev atugushev removed the enhancement Improvements to functionality label Jun 21, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
docs Documentation related
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants