#1097 [Test] Changes newsteaser attribute to newsteaser class

Open
mweimann wants to merge 1 commits from feature/282-newstag-to-class into test
mweimann commented 1 month ago

@max.mehl this PR goes to test to see if the changes are working. It looks dangerous since so many files are changed.

@max.mehl this PR goes to test to see if the changes are working. It looks dangerous since so many files are changed.
mweimann changed title from Changes newsteaser attribute to newsteaser class to [Test] Changes newsteaser attribute to newsteaser class 1 month ago
max.mehl commented 1 month ago
Owner

Thanks. I will merge master into test first to resolve all these conflicts

Thanks. I will merge master into test first to resolve all these conflicts
max.mehl commented 1 month ago
Owner

A few questions:

  1. Can I rebase on test and merge?
  2. Did you check whether these files were actually up-to-date translations? We should be careful not to touch outdated translations.
A few questions: 1. Can I rebase on test and merge? 2. Did you check whether these files were actually up-to-date translations? We should be careful not to touch outdated translations.
mweimann commented 1 month ago
Poster

Can I rebase on test and merge?

yes

Did you check whether these files were actually up-to-date translations? We should be careful not to touch outdated translations.

I didn’t and now the system would say it’s up to date because the change date is the same - right? We need the logical “version” system.. I have no clue how to check this in a reasonable way for all of the files.

> Can I rebase on test and merge? yes > Did you check whether these files were actually up-to-date translations? We should be careful not to touch outdated translations. I didn't and now the system would say it's up to date because the change date is the same - right? We need the logical "version" system.. I have no clue how to check this in a reasonable way for all of the files.
max.mehl commented 1 month ago
Owner

I didn’t and now the system would say it’s up to date because the change date is the same - right? We need the logical “version” system.. I have no clue how to check this in a reasonable way for all of the files.

Yes, exactly, that’s how the systems works. I agree that a version system, cleverly integrated in different workflows and well-communicated, may solve such issues. However, we would have to think of a way to handle old files, and those who already are outdated.

For a method to only change files which are up-to-date, see #1092

> I didn’t and now the system would say it’s up to date because the change date is the same - right? We need the logical “version” system.. I have no clue how to check this in a reasonable way for all of the files. Yes, exactly, that's how the systems works. I agree that a version system, cleverly integrated in different workflows and well-communicated, may solve such issues. However, we would have to think of a way to handle old files, and those who already are outdated. For a method to only change files which are up-to-date, see #1092
Some checks are pending
continuous-integration/drone/push Build is passing
continuous-integration/drone/pr Build is failing
This pull request has changes conflicting with the target branch.
about/albers/albers.de.xhtml
about/albers/albers.en.xhtml
about/albers/albers.nl.xhtml
about/funds/2001.it.xhtml
about/funds/2002.it.xhtml
about/funds/2003.it.xhtml
about/funds/2004.it.xhtml
about/funds/2005.it.xhtml
about/funds/2006.it.xhtml
about/funds/2007.it.xhtml
Sign in to join this conversation.
Loading…
Cancel
Save
There is no content yet.