Update json command files so they only include syntax related information #10398
Conversation
oranagra
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i'm guessing that all of these where added in the json files simply by copying them from the history sections of redis-doc (deleting them from one place and adding them in another).
so now when we delete them from here, please make a redis-doc PR to add these details these so we don't end up losing them.
also, let's be sure to get @itamarhaber's feedback before merging, just to be sure we're not overlooking something.
|
The texts definitely need some TLC - go at it @madolson !! |
|
Yes, I am looking at this again. Such a long poll cycle |
|
@madolson what's the status here? can we merge it or waiting for anything else? |
|
@itamarhaber A question for you, I have no idea what is going on in the redis-doc pages these days. What is the best way to add the documentation that was removed here back into the redis-doc pages. |
|
@oranagra The blocker is that we want to transfer the docs, but I'm not entirely clear what is going on with the docs atm. We can merge it and I can create an issue there to just unblock the release. |
|
@madolson not sure what you mean.. just make a PR to redis-doc repo to re-add that information. |
Added a section for behavior change history as a replacement for redis/redis#10398.
…tion (redis#10398) The command json documents should just include information about the "arguments" and the "outputs". I removed all of the 'functional wording' so it's clear.
As discussed in #13749 (comment). After #10398 we should record only the arguments and output changes in the command history, while placing all others in the redis-doc, so revert #13749.
…#13827) As discussed in redis#13749 (comment). After redis#10398 we should record only the arguments and output changes in the command history, while placing all others in the redis-doc, so revert redis#13749.
The command json documents should just include information about the "arguments" and the "outputs". I removed all of the 'functional wording' so it's clear. Maybe we should document the history field somewhere too?
to do: