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

Fix typos #668

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 8, 2022
Merged

Fix typos #668

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 8, 2022

Conversation

goyalyashpal
Copy link
Contributor

@goyalyashpal goyalyashpal commented Nov 16, 2022

No description provided.

@Rmano
Copy link
Collaborator

Rmano commented Nov 16, 2022

No idea why the Travis check failed the first time. Restarted

@Rmano Rmano added the documentation bug/improvement Wrong or incorrect documentation label Nov 16, 2022
@Rmano
Copy link
Collaborator

Rmano commented Dec 8, 2022

Hi, I'm thinking to release a 1.6.0 around this weekend... Do you like to merge?

@goyalyashpal
Copy link
Contributor Author

yeah sure,

the only reason i kept this as draft was for more typos on my next read (which is still pending 😅). i will open a new pr for those if i find any.

@goyalyashpal
Copy link
Contributor Author

just curious, is the access to mark it "ready for review" only with the author (here, that's me) or is it with maintainers (that's u) too? i think it should be latter, but want to confirm.

@goyalyashpal goyalyashpal marked this pull request as ready for review December 8, 2022 12:12
@Rmano
Copy link
Collaborator

Rmano commented Dec 8, 2022

just curious, is the access to mark it "ready for review" only with the author (here, that's me) or is it with maintainers (that's u) too? i think it should be latter, but want to confirm.

I think it's the former... Next time I'll check!

Thanks

@Rmano Rmano merged commit e2c0441 into circuitikz:master Dec 8, 2022
@goyalyashpal goyalyashpal deleted the patch-1 branch December 8, 2022 12:55
@goyalyashpal
Copy link
Contributor Author

goyalyashpal commented Dec 8, 2022

i really should start naming my branches properly 🤦 - will try to keep it in mind in future

I came to know about this point about branches having proper names from newpipe pull request template:
https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe/blob/4a27d371e0900621a3e6aeffcab9e9b7dafdec00/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md?plain=1#L29

which digging out now, came from TeamNewPipe/NewPipe#3132 : click for highlighted line

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation bug/improvement Wrong or incorrect documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants