-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 178
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
Bad links 011618 #1155
Bad links 011618 #1155
Conversation
@duck-rh @mscherer @rbowen I got the dreaded "branch cannot be rebased due to conflicts" error, but there aren't any hints to help me figure out what happened :( my gut feeling is that |
I always thought that the entire point of having events as a submodule, or whatever it's called, is to avoid having those files versioned along with the website files. Is this something that we can fix? Like, actually pull it out as a separate repo, and not have these stupid extra committed files with every PR? That would be awesome. |
source/events/edit.html.md
Outdated
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ title: Edit RDO events | |||
# Editing the RDO events calendar | |||
|
|||
The RDO events calendar is maintained as part of the | |||
[community.redhat.com](community.redhat.com) events site. To edit or add | |||
[community.redhat.com](https://www.community.redhat.com) events site. To edit or add |
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.
The url www.community.redhat.com is not valid.
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.
interesting... looks like http://community.redhat.com/ is just fine but www isn't. Is that something that should be fixed in the DNS side of things? Or are we not worried about it?
So, I did tried, and the problem is a conflict on source/infra/index.html.md Here is how I did reach the conclusion (using git cli, but any client should do the trick, some might even be easier for that in fact):
Then it show me the following:
From there, the conflict in edition should appear, since 47d1a8a removed some code, but then So the UI of git for that is quite crap, but the solution would have been to merge the last 2 commits (using git commit --amend, or something like that, or git rebase -i). I am gonna fix the branch manually on monday, unless people want me to explain the details (I do not want to assume people are uninterested, or do not want or can't learn that very specific skill of git branch fixing, there is nothing scary once you know, but I guess people prefer to get the fix rather than the fix + 1h of funny and exciting git lecture by me ). Is it fine for people ? |
@mary-grace one thing you can do to integrate the content of master back in your branch is to avoid merging, as this causes problems. First go to your master branch and update it with |
@mscherer Given how patch-heavy this pull request is, I'd love it if you could fix the branch manually & push it through. Much appreciated! |
I merged manually, sorry, I forgot this PR due to Devconf preparation, thanks to @mary-grace for reminding me :) I will watch over the build during the day, in case something went wrong, but closing in the mean time. |
thanks, @mscherer! :) |
more progress on redhat-openstack/easyfix#24
fixed all but a few links. waiting for answers on a handful & others will tackle with bigger project.