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

Merge duplicate CONTRIBUTING contents #2110

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Feb 9, 2022
Merged

Conversation

tkoyama010
Copy link
Member

@tkoyama010 tkoyama010 commented Jan 30, 2022

Overview

We have deplicate contents in CONTRIBUTING.md and Contributing. It is not good that we have to write same thing in 2 places. I merge the content and save it to CONTRIBUTING.md CONTRIBUTING.rst.

Details

  • None

resolve #2105

@github-actions github-actions bot added the documentation Anything related to the documentation/website label Jan 30, 2022
@adeak
Copy link
Member

adeak commented Jan 30, 2022

Thanks for tackling this @tkoyama010 (and for noticing the issue in the first place).

I think most contributors would be reading the online docs version, so we should definitely have an rst rendered there. The question is whether we just use a stub CONTRIBUTING.md (to be read on github or in a terminal) that points to the online docs, or whether to turn it into an .rst and keep the duplicate content (but in a way that doesn't need manual editing back and forth, i.e. by including the in-terminal version into the website version).

I can't tell which one is better, personally.

@tkoyama010
Copy link
Member Author

Having seen the discussion at #2105, I think it is better to follow the authors.rst example as @banesullivan said.

This is exactly what we do in doc/getting-started/authors.rst: https://github.com/pyvista/pyvista/blame/main/doc/getting-started/authors.rst#L11

The rst file can be checked on GitHub without any problem, so I think it is fine to turn markdown into rst.

@tkoyama010 tkoyama010 marked this pull request as draft January 30, 2022 10:56
@tkoyama010 tkoyama010 marked this pull request as ready for review February 3, 2022 23:43
@tkoyama010 tkoyama010 requested a review from adeak February 3, 2022 23:44
Copy link
Member

@akaszynski akaszynski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @tkoyama010! Agree with using rst as we can avoid duplication.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Anything related to the documentation/website
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Try cleaning up the CONTRIBUTING.md/developer_notes.rst dichotomy
3 participants