MINOR: [Docs] Tweak language in basic_arrow.rst #40006
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
github-actions
bot
added
Component: Documentation
awaiting review
Member
|
@ksuarez1423 Could you review this as the author of the original text? |
|
After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 3 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 135b364. There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉 The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 1 possible false positive for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them. |
dgreiss
pushed a commit
to dgreiss/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 19, 2024
### Rationale for this change I came across this use of the word "cutely" and thought it might trip people up. I think the author was trying to make a point about CPU cache-friendliness and I don't think cutely is a common enough way to talk about CPU caches to be used here. ### What changes are included in this PR? It might be more specific to say that it's the data that's in buffers of the chunks that is either in the CPU cache or not but I think the simpler language I went with matches the high-level nature of this document. ### Are these changes tested? No ### Are there any user-facing changes? Yes, just to docs. Authored-by: Bryce Mecum <petridish@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>
amoeba
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 1, 2024
### What changes are included in this PR? This adds developer tooling to the repo for linting the docs by adding the sphinx-lint tool to archery and our pre-commit hooks. In both locations, only two rules are enabled at the moment (Discussed in #40006): `trailing-whitespace` and `missing-final-newline`. This PR also fixes the individual issues covered by the new tooling. ### Are these changes tested? Yes, though manually. I tested this works by running `archery lint --docs` and `pre-commit` without and without changes that should get caught by the rules. It works as expected. ### Are there any user-facing changes? Yes, 1. Developers that use pre-commit hooks will see a change in behavior when they modify docs 2. Developers using archery will see a new --docs option in `archery lint` 3. Developers working on the docs may see CI failures related to the new checks * Closes: #39990 * GitHub Issue: #39990 Authored-by: Bryce Mecum <petridish@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Bryce Mecum <petridish@gmail.com>
vibhatha
pushed a commit
to vibhatha/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
May 25, 2024
…0022) ### What changes are included in this PR? This adds developer tooling to the repo for linting the docs by adding the sphinx-lint tool to archery and our pre-commit hooks. In both locations, only two rules are enabled at the moment (Discussed in apache#40006): `trailing-whitespace` and `missing-final-newline`. This PR also fixes the individual issues covered by the new tooling. ### Are these changes tested? Yes, though manually. I tested this works by running `archery lint --docs` and `pre-commit` without and without changes that should get caught by the rules. It works as expected. ### Are there any user-facing changes? Yes, 1. Developers that use pre-commit hooks will see a change in behavior when they modify docs 2. Developers using archery will see a new --docs option in `archery lint` 3. Developers working on the docs may see CI failures related to the new checks * Closes: apache#39990 * GitHub Issue: apache#39990 Authored-by: Bryce Mecum <petridish@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Bryce Mecum <petridish@gmail.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
Rationale for this change
I came across this use of the word "cutely" and thought it might trip people up. I think the author was trying to make a point about CPU cache-friendliness and I don't think cutely is a common enough way to talk about CPU caches to be used here.
What changes are included in this PR?
It might be more specific to say that it's the data that's in buffers of the chunks that is either in the CPU cache or not but I think the simpler language I went with matches the high-level nature of this document.
Are these changes tested?
No
Are there any user-facing changes?
Yes, just to docs.