Preserve pre-untyped stats spec points #177
Merged
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
This attempts to minimise the changes of a731d12, to avoid unnecessary spec point churn and make the 2.1.0...3.0.0 diff more readable. I’m assuming the introduction of TS15 was done to avoid having a load of deletion notices for the TS12d-o subpoints, which is a valid aim, but I think overall it’s better this way.
lawrence-forooghian
force-pushed
the
preserve-stats-points
branch
from
1e04f6d
to
261d936
Compare
SimonWoolf
approved these changes
Dec 18, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This attempts to minimise the changes of a731d12, to avoid unnecessary spec point churn and make the
2.1.0...3.0.0diff more readable (here’s how theStatsdiff looks after the changes from this PR — you'll need to navigate to "Files changed" →textile/features.textile).I’m assuming the introduction of TS15 was done to avoid having a load of deletion notices for the TS12d-o subpoints, which is a valid aim, but I think overall it’s better this way.