Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
Looks pretty good already. |
Collaborator
|
LGTM, maybe just merge it and make a follow up issue? |
Some repetitions between tabs, but still shorter. Mention "general features" of HTML static site generators.
mmesiti
force-pushed
the
tools-refactor-spring2026
branch
from
3329ed5 to
56815b8
Compare
Collaborator
Author
This is very wise, if I don't manage to finish by today I'll do it |
Collaborator
Author
|
Update: decided to defer the implementation of the comparison table (will be another PR), but I am not sure myself about the results, so I think it makes sense to wait and do this once we all agree on the result (will open next draft PR shortly) |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Addresses #310.
Some repetitions between tabs, but still shorter.
Mention "general features" of HTML static site generators.
Note: Still missing: table with comparison between different documentation types, as suggested by @ashwinvis in #310 (comment).
This will be added in a separate PR, we might need to think a little more about it.