Documentation Review Changes - #93
Conversation
… since all data was a duplicate.
|
@rogurr, this looks like the right direction. Please let me know when it's ready for review (since it is currently in draft). |
…tter references to the Patina documentation
@makubacki, I'm going to ping Phil and Jerry about this PR and let them decide to take it as is or use it in one of their PRs since they are responsible for the full documentation update. This is just a confirmation that the data in the files deleted did not contain any information that is not already in the Patina documents. I documented in each task why I could remove the file and linked as appropriate in the repo or the task. |
Sounds good. I'm mainly interested in looking through the Patina-related content being deleted and confirming that it's all gone. If that's already done, great. I'd expect anything to be really outdated and inconsequential to the Patina docs. |
philgweber
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree in removing these since they are all documented in Patina already.
Removed specific files no longer needed due to documentation in the Patina repository.
This PR is just removing those files and fixing up links to the proper Patina book pages, it does not address content within the existing files.