-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 195
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Glossary Corrections #3581
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Glossary Corrections #3581
Conversation
A quick side note: no need to create a new PR for each set up changes. It's no problem that you have, but don't feel like you need to. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Only a minor comment about the "Launcher." Everything else looks great 💯
Revised definition of Launcher based on feedback
That change looks good, but it seems like there's a problem with duplicate labels. The run is failing because
Does that error make sense to use? It sounds like we might need to pick a different name for the reference label for DataFuture in your glossary |
Changed the reference label for the DataFuture entry
I have changed the DataFuture label, I considered changing others to match but I am worried about introducing new errors |
if you get new errors, then you get new errors and then you fix them in another commit - that isn't something to be scared of. my PRs fail CI about 50% of the time. what matters is not having errors when this PR is merged to the |
Thank you. I'll change the other labels now so they match |
Changed the labels for the other entries for uniformity
@benclifford – do we need to update Kelechi's permissions in our repo so she can contribute to our docs? I saw your message in our hacker's channel, so I want to double-check. UPDATE: no permissions update is required. An approved reviewer will need to update and merge it. |
Here's an error that is happening in the documentation build now: (click on the red x of parsl / mail test-suite 3.8 and scroll all the way to the bottom)
That sounds like something at line 99 of glossary.rst being treated as a reference, around the text |
.result() method in the Future definition has been changed to double backticks (``.result()``), which should render it as inline code
The .result() method in the Future definition has been changed to double backticks, which should render it as inline code instead |
We did it! Thank you for helping @sophie-bui @WardLT @benclifford |
Co-authored-by: Daniel S. Katz <d.katz@ieee.org>
Thank you for your detailed review, I really appreciate your help, time and effort. I am applying your corrections right now! I hope to get more feedback from you afterwards @danielskatz |
Co-authored-by: Daniel S. Katz <d.katz@ieee.org>
Co-authored-by: Daniel S. Katz <d.katz@ieee.org>
Co-authored-by: Daniel S. Katz <d.katz@ieee.org>
Co-authored-by: Daniel S. Katz <d.katz@ieee.org>
Co-authored-by: Daniel S. Katz <d.katz@ieee.org>
Co-authored-by: Daniel S. Katz <d.katz@ieee.org>
Co-authored-by: Daniel S. Katz <d.katz@ieee.org>
Co-authored-by: Daniel S. Katz <d.katz@ieee.org>
Please ping me when you want me to review again. |
Revised glossary definitions to improve clarity and accuracy based on feedback. Updated terms to use more precise language, particularly around the concepts of nodes, resources, and parallelism. Clarified the relationship between tasks, apps, and workflows.
Please can you look at this again, I have made corrections and it's ready for your review |
I've provided a few more comments. Also, I know @benclifford looked at this in terms of technically merging it, but it would be useful for him or @yadudoc or @kylechard to also review it for content. |
Applied more feedback for three definitions and took out a fourth
I have implemented the latest feedback, thank you. When differentiating between Parallelism and Concurrency I used an analogy with a similar theme in both definitions and compared that in Parallelism definition. Does it look okay? |
Fixed a typo
Yes, the concurrency vs parallelism does look ok to me now. |
I still would like one more review of the content, however |
Removed numbering from the terms
Did Alphabetical order for terms
Made sure each term had a label that could be referenced
Edited two index files to include the glossary
This is related to issue #3426
Recreates changes from this closed PR with corrections from @sophie-bui
Please review here @WardLT