Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Issue/309 docs table of contents #333

Merged
merged 6 commits into from May 30, 2020

Conversation

thescientist13
Copy link
Contributor

@thescientist13 thescientist13 commented Mar 29, 2020

Description

Coming out of the 2020-03-10 meeting of the Package Maintenance team, on the topic of issue #309, the suggestion was that this comment on the suggestion of a Table of Contents for the docs in the repository be extracted out into its own PR.

Summary of Changes

  1. Updated the docs/README.md to provide additional context and motivation on behalf of the team, and created a ToC that links to existing docs.
  2. Created "stubs" for missing docs, that could become their own issues to track and can be authored independently and eventually promoted out of draft status.

Questions / Considerations

Just around docs in general...

  1. Is there a threshold for a doc moving out of draft status?
  2. Would there be any value in having a general format / convention around docs in terms of authoring / organization / structure?

docs/drafts/worflows.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/drafts/code-of-conduct.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor Author

@thescientist13 thescientist13 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Made follow up issues for the following topics in the list, either because they are new, or because it would be good to move them out of draft status:

Depending on order of merges, we should probably include Dependency Management on this list as there is a PR open for adding it to the project.

Also missed out on tools.md, so added that to the ToC.


One question: is there criteria documented for what is considered a document in draft status vs not in draft status? In other words, how does a draft actually move out of that status, if it is in it?

@thescientist13 thescientist13 added the package-maintenance-agenda Agenda items for package-maintenance team label May 13, 2020
Copy link
Member

@mhdawson mhdawson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

docs/README.md Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/drafts/workflows.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@BethGriggs BethGriggs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

thescientist13 and others added 2 commits May 20, 2020 09:54
Co-authored-by: Steven <steven@ceriously.com>
Co-authored-by: Steven <steven@ceriously.com>
@Eomm
Copy link
Member

Eomm commented May 30, 2020

Merging

more than 7 days from 4th approve and no blocking review

One question: is there criteria documented for what is considered a document in draft status vs not in draft status? In other words, how does a draft actually move out of that status, if it is in it?

I think we could could think to drafts as v0.x and not major released yet 😅 Usually it means that there is still discussion on them and those docs did not receive a complete consensus.

Would there be any value in having a general format / convention around docs in terms of authoring / organization / structure?

Right now there is not a shared structure (like file name in UPPERCASE and some in lower), it would be good have it since we are writing a lot of docs 👍

@Eomm Eomm merged commit cc04766 into nodejs:master May 30, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants