Documentation on how to move code from a private repository to a public repository

[hb326]

Tasks

• Create an issue to discuss what you are going to do, if you haven't done so already (and add the link at the bottom)
• Give this pull request a descriptive title that can be used as a one line summary in a changelog
• Circle/CI tests pass. Status can be seen below your pull request. If the tests are failing, click the link to find out why.
• Preferably Codacy code quality checks pass, however a few remaining hard to solve Codacy issues are still acceptable. Status can be seen below your pull request. If there is an error, click the link to find out why. If you suspect Codacy may be wrong, please ask by commenting.
• Please use yamllint to check that your YAML files do not contain mistakes (not necessary)

Closes #1578

[zklaus]

Have you tried building the documentation locally and checking how this contribution fits in? It renders a bit strangely for me.
As a reminder, if you installed esmvaltool from your working directory of this repository with pip install -e .[develop] then you should be able to build the documentation with python setup.py build_sphinx and this should produce the documentation as HTML in doc/sphinx/build/html.

[zklaus]

Alternatively, you can check the documentation as produced by readthedocs for this PR here.

[hb326]

Alternatively, you can check the documentation as produced by readthedocs for this PR here.

I changed the underlining for the section headings, and now the entry in the documentation is corrected. Well spotted!

[bouweandela]

Looks good! Would it make sense to move this content to the GitHub Workflow section? Or would that make it too hard to find and do we not like that section very much anyway anymore because it's a bit dated?

[hb326]

Looks good! Would it make sense to move this content to the GitHub Workflow section? Or would that make it too hard to find and do we not like that section very much anyway anymore because it's a bit dated?

Honestly, I am not sure where I would prefer it. The GitHub Workflow section would work as well, but as you said, it is a little more hidden. And the the topic touches on both, the general contribution and the GitHub Workflow. If you think the GitHub Workflow section is anyway a little dated, then I would probably just leave the section where it is right now, and rething its placement when we update the Workflow section.

[zklaus]

I only have one question left: Should the steps be numbered like this? Normally, I would say that this numbering is part of the structure of the document, so if desired, should perhaps be achieved with a :numbered: directive somehow. Otherwise, the style should be consistent across the documentation, so I was wondering if similar lists exist in other documents and if they use the parentheses style 1) or the pointed style 1. (which would fit more with the markdown numbered lists).

[hb326]

I only have one question left: Should the steps be numbered like this? Normally, I would say that this numbering is part of the structure of the document, so if desired, should perhaps be achieved with a :numbered: directive somehow. Otherwise, the style should be consistent across the documentation, so I was wondering if similar lists exist in other documents and if they use the parentheses style 1) or the pointed style 1. (which would fit more with the markdown numbered lists).

I have changed the numbering and underlining so that this section of the documentation is now consistent with the numbering in the documentation section "datasets".