Fix asciidoctor-dita-vale errors for the ConceptLink rule (3.16)#4812
Fix asciidoctor-dita-vale errors for the ConceptLink rule (3.16)#4812aneta-petrova wants to merge 3 commits intotheforeman:3.16from
Conversation
…heforeman#4801)" This reverts commit f2e393e.
527cb0d to
a319c98
Compare
|
#4801 updated the content type of the "guide not ready" module from concept to reference, and the include paths referencing that file had to be updated on 3.16 to resolve the build failures I mentioned in #4801 (comment). This PR contains the same changes as #4801 as cherry-picked on 3.17, with the addition of updating the "guide not ready" module includes and removing two unused modules. Therefore, I don't think the full review process is needed and I'll merge tomorrow towards the end of the day (unless there are objections of course :)) |
maximiliankolb
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reproduced locally: There is one merge conflict when cherry-picking the first commit which I had a look at. Second and third commit LGTM.
IMO this is OK to get merged.
| You can back up your {Project} deployment to ensure the continuity of your {ProjectName} deployment and associated data in case a disaster occurs. | ||
| If your deployment uses custom configurations, you must consider how to handle these custom configurations when you plan your backup and disaster recovery policy. | ||
|
|
||
| include::snip_backup-usecase-note.adoc[] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Technically, this snippet is present on 3.16; indicated by the fact that your third commit deletes it. IMO either way is OK.
What changes are you introducing?
Applying #4801 (or rather its cherry-pick on 3.17) to 3.16
Why are you introducing these changes? (Explanation, links to references, issues, etc.)
Anything else to add? (Considerations, potential downsides, alternative solutions you have explored, etc.)
Contributor checklists
Please cherry-pick my commits into: