Skip to content

Conversation

@cooperrc
Copy link
Member

@cooperrc cooperrc commented Sep 1, 2020

There is a current PR #17159, where we (@eric-wieser @melissawm @bjnath @seberg) are updating the numpy-for-matlab-users.rst guide.

Comment suggested updating the copytright (R) symbols as per MATLAB's suggested use:

@bjnath:

MathWorks says

use the relevant trademark symbol to mark the first occurrences

and

The word MATLAB®should appear in all capital letters.

cooperrc and others added 3 commits September 1, 2020 22:14
@cooperrc
Copy link
Member Author

cooperrc commented Sep 2, 2020

@melissawm and @eric-wieser that was a good idea to catch the case as well as the (R) symbols.

Current commit 233d281 updates all Matlab and matlab to MATLAB

Copy link
Member

@melissawm melissawm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, @cooperrc ! I'm just not sure what's going on with the CI...

replace (R) in reference to Mathworks reference

Co-authored-by: Eric Wieser <wieser.eric@gmail.com>
@cooperrc
Copy link
Member Author

cooperrc commented Sep 2, 2020

Thanks, @cooperrc ! I'm just not sure what's going on with the CI...

I'm not sure either. Its odd that the checks were having trouble.

@seberg
Copy link
Member

seberg commented Sep 2, 2020

Thanks Ryan, circleci is happy, so all good!

@seberg seberg changed the title DOC: remove (R) from all MATLAB mentions except the first in numpy-for-matlab-users.rst DOC: Use official MATLAB spelling in numpy-for-matlab-users.rst Sep 2, 2020
@seberg seberg merged commit 9e8c5d6 into numpy:master Sep 2, 2020
@bjnath
Copy link
Contributor

bjnath commented Sep 2, 2020

Will there now be merge conflicts with #17159, where many changed lines include the 'matlab' string in its various forms?

@seberg
Copy link
Member

seberg commented Sep 2, 2020

Oh, yeah :(, that is probably an annoying merge conflict there

@eric-wieser
Copy link
Member

It should be an easy conflict to solve, since @cooperrc authored both PRs. Keeping the version of the file as it is in #17159 should work just fine.

@eric-wieser
Copy link
Member

git rebase -Xtheirs origin/master should do the trick there

@cooperrc
Copy link
Member Author

cooperrc commented Sep 2, 2020

git rebase -Xtheirs origin/master should do the trick there

@eric-wieser, should I run this, then push the changes?

@eric-wieser
Copy link
Member

eric-wieser commented Sep 2, 2020

Yes, I think so.You'll I'd recommend running git tag just-in-case-i-break-it before hand, for eponymous reasons. So overally

git pull origin  # get any changes from the other PR made in the web version
git fetch upstream  # or whatever you called this repo
git tag just-in-case-i-break-it
git rebase -Xtheirs upstream/master
git push origin -f

@cooperrc
Copy link
Member Author

cooperrc commented Sep 2, 2020

OK, its been done. First glance looks ok. I was nervous with the -f option in a push.

Thanks @eric-wieser!

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.

5 participants