-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
Doc: thoughts on documentation overhaul? #2093
Comments
@alvyjudy I'd be delighted if you could help with that. Thanks for volunteering! In order to not waste your time, I'd like to provide feedback incrementally as you work on it. I'd hate for you to overhaul the documentation only to have to revert half of it based on an understanding that I can't convey quickly. To that end, I recommend one of two approaches. Either,
Regardless how you approach it, rest assured that we're eager to improve the documentation and your desire to help there warms my heart. I'll do everything I can to help keep you from being stalled on the effort. Feel free to ping me directly if you need attention on something. |
Hi @jaraco , thanks so much for your support I really appreciate it! Regarding the approach, I would prefer to update the documentation incrementally considering that most of the content remain relevant, given how ubiquitous setuptools is and how many libraries still depend on it. Re-writing it from scratch and push everything to a legacy section might actually upset readers. I think the first step is to reorganize the content order and index, with minimal editing, to make it more reader-friendly so that we can find a better angle to paint the PEP 517 landscape down the road. I will open a new branch and PR and start editing the docs slowly. This whole process might take a while so for the feedback please take your time. I'll also adjust my own pace depending on how fast the review is taking place. |
In #1765, I've merged another large-scale doc change. Please be aware of that. |
I realize I haven't made the structure of the new doc clear in previous PRs so I will present it here for others interested too
@jaraco I have addressed other changes made to the doc in the latest PR (2146). Please let me know your thoughts on that (and general suggestions if there is any:) |
In 8cca69b, I've merged master into the docs/2093-docs-revamp branch. Unfortunately, the branch is emitting lots of warnings when building the docs:
Additionally, there are other problems, like 'keywords' exists in both references and userguide. I share the blame on that, as I approved the changes. In retrospect, we probably should not have attempted to develop these changes in a branch but should instead have made incremental changes that were stable. I was hoping to at least merge these changes into master and stop the divergence, but given the issues above, I'm reluctant to do that. On the other hand, most of these changes were reviewed and the issues can probably be dealt with subsequently. Perhaps we just accept the warnings and push forward. |
Hi,
I feel currently the setuptools documentation is quite cluttered and it makes it hard to improve the documentation, as one had to think really hard where to put the new documentation pieces (e.g. the 8 open issues that has stalled).
Take the index for example, the most commonly used features are all clustered into one section, while the relatively trivial ones take up like 4/5 of the top entries. Also, the main section still mentions a lot about python eggs, which I suppose is considered deprecated? The order of each section is less than ideal and the actual content seems to assume a big deal of knowledge from distutils. It would be nicer if they could be organized in such fasion: 1) quick start, 2) user guide, 3) reference, 4) deprecated/discouraged.
Especially now with PEP 517 being pushed forward, it might be a good idea to overhaul the documentation to 1) encourage the adaptation of this new standard and 2) inform developers of the new role setuptools will be playing in this new landscape and most importantly 3) make it more reader friendly.
I would like to take on this challenge and improve the documentation if that's desired:)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: