docs(repeat): Remove scheduler as param.

[jdetle]

Description:
The RxJS 5.0 repeat operator does not take a scheduler as a param but is documented as having it as a parameter. I deleted this line. Where is the ReactiveX website version control hosted so I can change the documentation for the RxJS implementation of repeat?

[rgbkrk]

reactivex.io/rxjs is built from this repository

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 97.677% when pulling 5b1ee56 on jdetle:doc-fix into de6a8f4 on ReactiveX:master.

[jdetle]

http://reactivex.io/documentation/operators/ doesn't seem to be built here, and provides some erroneous documentation for the behavior of repeat.

[jayphelps]

@jdetle thank you! can you also remove it from the description too? https://github.com/jdetle/rxjs/blob/5b1ee5626f2e6453facca90ac915974e5b7b685a/src/operator/repeat.ts#L9

Returns an Observable that repeats the stream of items emitted by the source Observable at most count times, on a particular IScheduler.

[trxcllnt]

Why don't we just make repeat use a scheduler? Seems like it should.

[jayphelps]

http://reactivex.io/documentation/operators/ doesn't seem to be built here, and provides some erroneous documentation for the behavior of repeat.

(incorrect link) http://reactivex.io/documentation/operators.html

Those docs are still RxJS v4 docs. We still need to coordinate how to get them updated and keep them in sync... 😢

[jayphelps]

@trxcllnt

Why don't we just make repeat use a scheduler? Seems like it should.

Indeed, but until someone steps up with the PR I'm inclined to remove it from the docs. Especially because we're short handed and it's unknown when it would get it. If you have the cycles, feel free--but I know you (and I) have tons of other things on our plate.

[jdetle]

I can tackle it, I'm unemployed at the moment so all I have are cycles :)

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:31 PM Jay Phelps ***@***.***> wrote: @trxcllnt <https://github.com/trxcllnt> Why don't we just make repeat use a scheduler? Seems like it should. Indeed, but until someone steps up with the PR I'm inclined to remove it from the docs. Especially because we're short handed and it's unknown when it would get it. If you have the cycles, feel free--but I know you (and I) have tons of other things on our plate. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2368 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKcARtSZK0K3_RsXIcbjPokJXGfszFpbks5rcNnPgaJpZM4L_ru6> .

-- Have a wonderful day, John J. Detlefs

[benlesh]

Well, I think it should be step 1: PR to remove it from the docs... then step 2: PR to add it (it's a new feature, so it's a minor revision change)

[lock]

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.