[APT-1691] Add Contributing and Forking sections #154
Conversation
This PR adds two new sections to the Guides area: - Contributing - Forking These new pages will live under a new "working-with-our-code" area. Additionally we're moving the "versioning" guide from "stay-up-to-date" to "working-with-our-code".
eak12913
requested review from
ebeneliason,
oredavids and
pete0emerson
as code owners
|
✔️ Deploy Preview for pensive-meitner-faaeee ready! 🔨 Explore the source changes: a98c006 🔍 Inspect the deploy log: https://app.netlify.com/sites/pensive-meitner-faaeee/deploys/61f1b8a1d2d6840007b01a83 😎 Browse the preview: https://deploy-preview-154--pensive-meitner-faaeee.netlify.app |
| participate in issues and pull requests, and you won’t be benefiting as much from the Gruntwork community. | ||
|
|
||
| So, whenever possible, use the code directly from the `gruntwork-io` GitHub org, as documented in | ||
| [Using Terraform Modules](#using_terraform_modules) and [Using scripts and binaries](#using_scripts_binaries). If your team relies on NPM, Docker Hub, Maven Central, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same comment as above regarding anchor links.
| Once you’ve forked the code, using it in is very similar to what is outlined in [Using Terraform Modules](#using_terraform_modules) and | ||
| [Using scripts and binaries](#using_scripts_binaries), except for the following differences: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These anchor links are broken. I think the first could possible go to this intro section, but we don't have a good answer for the latter at the moment. Thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if the right thing to do is to allow it to be broken. My thought process:
- If we don't have a place to link it to and we link it to an existing place which doesn't really help the user understand anything then we'll have no way in the future to discover this (unless someone tells us about it)
- If we leave it broken - or update the link to a known broken thing (eg: "replace-me-when-we-have-this-section") then we'll be able to punt dealing with the problem until we want to turn on the link validator which we are about to build. At that time - perhaps we'll have a better section for this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Where would you propose we link to? Two candidates for this content seem to be
- Somewhere in the intro guide
- The forthcoming Tools reference section
It's weird to leave it broken, though. If we link to tools, perhaps we should have a stub there with an admonition saying this isn't done, and with a link back to the original section of the guide on Gruntwork.io? Or even a redirect? That would feel better, I think.
ebeneliason
changed the title
2 participants
This PR adds two new sections to the Guides area:
These new pages will live under a new "working-with-our-code" area. Additionally we're moving the "versioning" guide from "stay-up-to-date" to "working-with-our-code".