Skip to content
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

fix/docs: dated TLS auth link in KubeEnforcer docs' ToC #107

Conversation

agilgur5
Copy link
Contributor

Description

  • 2d3b1eb changed the heading slightly,
    but didn't change the respective entry in the ToC
    • this updates the ToC entry to match the heading

Tags

Follow-up to #93

- 2d3b1eb changed the heading slightly,
  but didn't change the respective entry in the ToC
  - this updates the ToC entry to match the heading
@agilgur5 agilgur5 force-pushed the fix-kubeenforcer-incorrect-toc-link branch from 4e71f18 to 7f4f0ea Compare July 24, 2020 00:00
@agilgur5 agilgur5 changed the title fix/docs: dated TLS auth link in KubEnforcer docs' ToC fix/docs: dated TLS auth link in KubeEnforcer docs' ToC Jul 24, 2020
@niso120b
Copy link
Contributor

duplicate

@niso120b niso120b closed this Jul 28, 2020
@agilgur5
Copy link
Contributor Author

agilgur5 commented Jul 28, 2020

@niso120b Er, this wasn't a duplicate... the bug still very much exists in the docs. Also if it were a duplicate, I would expect you to specify a reference to the PR or commit it duplicates. This does not duplicate any of my other PRs that you merged or closed.

Maybe you meant it had conflicts, which it almost certainly did with #108 that standardized the ToC and was merged first. I have rebased with the main branch and fixed those conflicts. It will likely conflict with #105 as well since that moves this section under its Pre-reqs section.

Please re-open this as it fixes a bug.

@agilgur5
Copy link
Contributor Author

@niso120b fixed the merge conflict with #105 that was just merged as well. Should be no conflicts now and it was not a duplicate.

@agilgur5
Copy link
Contributor Author

Noting that this was re-opened and merged as #109

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.

2 participants