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

Add an update to the Q&A #371

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 21, 2018
Merged

Add an update to the Q&A #371

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 21, 2018

Conversation

wing328
Copy link
Member

@wing328 wing328 commented Jun 21, 2018

PR checklist

  • Read the contribution guidelines.
  • Ran the shell script under ./bin/ to update Petstore sample so that CIs can verify the change. (For instance, only need to run ./bin/{LANG}-petstore.sh and ./bin/security/{LANG}-petstore.sh if updating the {LANG} (e.g. php, ruby, python, etc) code generator or {LANG} client's mustache templates). Windows batch files can be found in .\bin\windows\.
  • Filed the PR against the correct branch: master, 3.1.x, 4.0.x. Default: master.
  • Copied the technical committee to review the pull request if your PR is targeting a particular programming language.

Description of the PR

(details of the change, additional tests that have been done, reference to the issue for tracking, etc)

@wing328 wing328 added this to the 3.0.3 milestone Jun 21, 2018
@@ -16,6 +16,8 @@ There are several reasons:
1. According to SmartBear, [Swagger Codegen 2.x and 3.x should be supported in parallel for a while](https://github.com/swagger-api/swagger-codegen/issues/7754#issuecomment-375039048) without the possibility to work with git branches to merge the fixes from one branch to the next. Having to implement everything twice is not a good idea and the best use of the Swagger Codegen community resources.
1. Having a community-driven version can bring the project to the next level.

UPDATE: After the public launch of OpenAPI Generator, some of the core team members were contacted by Ron (SmartBear) and we explained to him the reasons of the fork as explained above. We also asked him to contact [email protected] if he wants to discuss further but so far we don't see any email from him to [email protected].
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would remove "we":

and explained to him the reasons of the fork as explained above.

And later:

He was asked to contact [email protected] for further discussion, but so far there was no email from him to [email protected]

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"we" is appropriate here, as William and I both had separate interactions with him. In British English, there's also a "Royal We" which is used by single people of office or status; it can be used more generally to distance a single person or entity from a damaging situation. In both cases, "we" would be used correctly in this document.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I had contact with Ron too... I can provide Gitter logs...

It is just the rest of the page written in third person and for this section there is switch to "we". I style problem in my opinion...

But it is a detail.

@jimschubert jimschubert merged commit f4a5348 into master Jun 21, 2018
@jimschubert jimschubert deleted the wing328-patch-qna branch June 21, 2018 14:16
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.

None yet

3 participants