Skip to content

Don't describe progress-tree-log as a default feature#41

Merged
EliahKagan merged 1 commit intoGitoxideLabs:mainfrom
EliahKagan:update-doc
Jun 12, 2025
Merged

Don't describe progress-tree-log as a default feature#41
EliahKagan merged 1 commit intoGitoxideLabs:mainfrom
EliahKagan:update-doc

Conversation

@EliahKagan
Copy link
Member

Fixes #40

This removes the parenthetical characterization of progress-tree-log as a default feature in lib.rs documentation comments, since it is no longer a default feature since #39 (30.0.0).

Since it is no longer a default feature as of version 30.0.0 (GitoxideLabs#39).
@EliahKagan EliahKagan marked this pull request as ready for review June 12, 2025 07:43
@EliahKagan EliahKagan merged commit cf70e4a into GitoxideLabs:main Jun 12, 2025
@EliahKagan EliahKagan deleted the update-doc branch June 12, 2025 07:44
@EliahKagan
Copy link
Member Author

@Byron It seems to me that still having "(default)" on the feature name in the documentation--while small, and not affecting functionality--could be very confusing, since it's not a default feature anymore. Would it be reasonable to release 30.0.1 just for the documentation fix?

(#40 also described another problem, but that problem was actually fixed already before the release and I shouldn't have included it; I didn't notice that the fix was in place. Sorry about the confusion.)

@EliahKagan EliahKagan changed the title docs: Don't describe progress-tree-log as a default feature Don't describe progress-tree-log as a default feature Jun 12, 2025
EliahKagan added a commit to EliahKagan/prodash that referenced this pull request Jun 12, 2025
cf70e4a (GitoxideLabs#41) fixed it in the documentation comments in `lib.rs`,
but it had still been listed as a default in the readme, noted in:
GitoxideLabs#39 (comment)
@EliahKagan
Copy link
Member Author

Although I tried to search for and examine every occurrence of progress-tree-log, I apparently did not manage that, because the readme also needed to be updated and I missed that.

I've fixed that in #42. I think that's everything that needs to be updated for this?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Documentation inaccuracies since 30.0.0

1 participant