-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 383
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
Update netrc option description #4342
Conversation
Not sure but I think the description in the ui is a bit too long. I'd like to check how that looks. This description was already the longest compared to the other ones. Maybe we can somehow shorten it without losing relevant information? |
Didn't check it but maybe merge and adjust afterwards? One option could be to add a link to the docs only which explains the option in more verbose wording. |
Deployment of preview was successful: https://woodpecker-ci-woodpecker-pr-4342.surge.sh |
docs/versioned_docs/version-1.0/20-usage/71-project-settings.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/versioned_docs/version-2.5/20-usage/75-project-settings.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/versioned_docs/version-2.6/20-usage/75-project-settings.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/versioned_docs/version-2.7/20-usage/75-project-settings.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
I've adjusted the wording a bit and shortened the UI description. |
Co-authored-by: Robert Kaussow <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Robert Kaussow <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Robert Kaussow <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Robert Kaussow <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Robert Kaussow <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Robert Kaussow <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Robert Kaussow <[email protected]>
@qwerty287 are you fine with the current changes? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As some kind of a hotfix yes. Still I think it's too long. But as we're probably going to replace that with #2601 it's fine
after discussion in #2585
feel free to add suggestions to update the wording.