Instruct people to clone viable/strict as opposed to main #6243
Conversation
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
Summary: In the main branch of the documentation, let's ask people to use 'viable/strict' instead. Differential Revision: D64375880
🔗 Helpful Links🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/pytorch/executorch/6243
Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed. ✅ No FailuresAs of commit c9bf144 with merge base e342a92 ( This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes. |
facebook-github-bot
added
the
CLA Signed
Contributor
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D64375880 |
kirklandsign
approved these changes
Oct 15, 2024
Contributor
|
This pull request has been merged in 96ecf78. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Summary: In the main branch of the documentation, let's ask people to use 'viable/strict' instead.
Differential Revision: D64375880