Skip to content

Update lint settings from openshift/enhancements#6

Open
danielmellado wants to merge 1 commit intoopenshift-kni:mainfrom
danielmellado:update_lint_settings
Open

Update lint settings from openshift/enhancements#6
danielmellado wants to merge 1 commit intoopenshift-kni:mainfrom
danielmellado:update_lint_settings

Conversation

@danielmellado
Copy link
Collaborator

This commit updates the linting settings and ths optional sections from
the original openshift/enhancements repo.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Mellado dmellado@redhat.com

This commit updates the linting settings and ths optional sections from
the original openshift/enhancements repo.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Mellado <dmellado@redhat.com>
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested review from ffromani and imiller0 July 6, 2022 12:58
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jul 6, 2022

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: serngawy
To complete the pull request process, please ask for approval from danielmellado after the PR has been reviewed.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

Comment on lines +42 to +43
blanks-around-fences: false
blanks-around-headings: false
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

From the comment it looks like openshift/enhancements wanted these on but couldn't for historical reasons. Any reason we shouldn't start with them? I can go either way...

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd keep this in sync 1:1 with openshift/enhancements. Basically I'd rather keep compatibility in case one of the EP in kni would have to move over there or the other way around. Besides that, checking the code this rule seems to have been there since start.

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.

3 participants