docs: fix README log filename example and wording#3610
Open
NA-V10 wants to merge 1 commit intoalibaba:masterfrom
Open
docs: fix README log filename example and wording#3610NA-V10 wants to merge 1 commit intoalibaba:masterfrom
NA-V10 wants to merge 1 commit intoalibaba:masterfrom
Conversation
|
|
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Describe what this PR does / why we need it
This PR fixes the log filename example in
README.mdby changing{date}to${date}for proper shell variable formatting in Linux environments.It also includes several small wording and typo improvements in the documentation to improve readability and clarity.
Does this pull request fix one issue?
Yes
Describe how you did it
${date}README.mdDescribe how to verify it
Reviewed the updated documentation text and verified that the shell variable format is correct.
Special notes for reviews
No