-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 367
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
Typo Update retrievability.md #1785
Conversation
"historic blocks" should corrected to "historical blocks" for consistency.
WalkthroughThe pull request modifies the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🔇 Additional comments (1)learn/retrievability.md (1)
The use of "historical blocks" is appropriate in this context, as it's the more commonly used term when discussing data or events from the past. Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Overview
The word "historic" is correct, but the more common usage is "historical" when referring to data or events in the past.
So, "historic blocks" corrected to "historical blocks" for consistency.
Summary by CodeRabbit