feat: Make Sphinx integration experimental publicly visible #1813
Conversation
This file contains 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
With this commit the visibility settings are adjusted to use the Sphinx Integration from rules_python also in other (dependent) projects. Since the Sphinx integration is not yet stable, we denote in the documentation that this is done under the experimental API support. Meaning, breaking changes can occure at any point in time. See the discussion in bazelbuild#1796
rickeylev
approved these changes
Mar 18, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
With this commit the visibility settings are adjusted to use the Sphinx Integration from rules_python also in other (dependent) projects.
Since the Sphinx integration is not yet stable, we denote in the documentation that this is done under the experimental API support. Meaning, breaking changes can occure at any point in time.
See the discussion in #1796