Skip to content

Conversation

@hamogu
Copy link
Contributor

@hamogu hamogu commented Apr 28, 2021

Summary

Doc-string only change. No entry in release notes needed.

Details

The previous example implied that a spectrum may contain both positive
and negative orders in the same spectrum. That can happen only after
coadding - and in that case one would co-add the arfs as well.

fixes #982

Since this is a doctring-only update, I'll take the opportunity to see
if I can avoid wasting electrons for CI.

[ci skip]

THe previous example implied that a specturm may contain both positive
and negative orders in the same spectrum. That can happen only after
coadding - and in that case one would co-add the arfs as well.

fixes sherpa#982

Since this is a doctring-only update, I'll take the opportunity to see
if I can avoid wasting electrons for CI.

[ci skip]
@hamogu hamogu requested a review from DougBurke April 28, 2021 23:46
@hamogu
Copy link
Contributor Author

hamogu commented Apr 28, 2021

This is a very simple change. It can wait till after the 4.13.1 release or go in if approved - whatever is easier.

@hamogu
Copy link
Contributor Author

hamogu commented Apr 28, 2021

[ci skip] seems to work! Github action is skipped (which makes no sense for this PR), but RTDs still builds (which makes sense since I changed the docstring - also I don't know how to skip RTDs)

Copy link
Contributor

@DougBurke DougBurke left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@wmclaugh wmclaugh merged commit ef7a1f7 into sherpa:main May 20, 2021
@wmclaugh wmclaugh added this to the 4.14.0 milestone Jun 14, 2021
@hamogu hamogu deleted the multi_doc branch November 13, 2021 20:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Doc for load_multi_arfs / rmfs confusing or even wrong

3 participants