Remove incoherence between Doctrine and Propel introduction paragraphs #4356
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Wow, very nicely written - thanks Arnau! |
weaverryan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2014
…on paragraphs (arnaugm) This PR was merged into the 2.3 branch. Discussion ---------- Remove incoherence between Doctrine and Propel introduction paragraphs | Q | A | ------------- | --- | Doc fix? | yes | New docs? | no | Applies to | all | Fixed tickets | #4349 The introductory paragraph of Doctrine and Propel sections, although both are true in some way, look contradictory, so a rephrase of at least one of the two paragraphs would be convenient. Commits ------- 7992fdf Remove incoherence between Doctrine and Propel introduction paragraphs
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The introductory paragraph of Doctrine and Propel sections, although both are true in some way, look contradictory, so a rephrase of at least one of the two paragraphs would be convenient.