Remove stacked PR references#657
Conversation
|
😎 Merged successfully - details. |
|
Claude finished @pv72895's task in 1m 51s —— View job Claude PR Review
SummaryThe PR cleanly excises Issues1. Orphaned page (see inline on 2. Wording nit (see inline on Other notes
|
| * [Submit and cancel pull requests](merge-queue/using-the-queue/reference.md) | ||
| * [Monitor queue status](merge-queue/using-the-queue/monitor-queue-status.md) | ||
| * [Handle failed pull requests](merge-queue/using-the-queue/handle-failed-pull-requests.md) | ||
| * [Work with stacked pull requests](merge-queue/using-the-queue/stacked-pull-requests.md) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the page still remains but we don't link to it
| @@ -29,7 +29,6 @@ | |||
| * [Submit and cancel pull requests](merge-queue/using-the-queue/reference.md) | |||
| * [Monitor queue status](merge-queue/using-the-queue/monitor-queue-status.md) | |||
| * [Handle failed pull requests](merge-queue/using-the-queue/handle-failed-pull-requests.md) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Orphaned page — merge-queue/using-the-queue/stacked-pull-requests.md still exists
After this PR, no markdown file links to stacked-pull-requests.md (the entry is removed from summary.md, using-the-queue/README.md, reference.md, chrome-extension.md, trunk-sudo-app.md, and configure-branch-protection.md), but the 12 KB source file is still in the repo and still describes /trunk stack as a supported feature.
If the goal of this PR is to retire the feature from the docs, the page should either be deleted or replaced with a short deprecation/redirect notice. Leaving an orphan markdown file means:
- The page is still buildable/indexable by GitBook and search engines via direct URL.
- It still cross-links to other pages (Trunk Sudo, priority merging, batching, predictive testing), making it look like a live, supported workflow.
- Old bookmarks and Slack links land on documentation that contradicts the rest of the site.
If keeping the URL alive intentionally (e.g. for SEO/inbound links), consider trimming the file down to a short "this feature has been removed" notice instead. Otherwise git rm it.
Co-authored-by: claude[bot] <209825114+claude[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Claude finished @pv72895's task in 1m 10s —— View job Claude PR Review
SummaryRe-reviewed after the latest synchronize. Both items I flagged earlier are now resolved:
Re-check of the diff
Spot-checked for stragglers with No blocking issues. LGTM. · Branch: |
we're rolling back the feature for now