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

Keep requiring footer? #79

Closed
maelle opened this issue May 8, 2019 · 15 comments
Closed

Keep requiring footer? #79

maelle opened this issue May 8, 2019 · 15 comments

Comments

@maelle
Copy link
Member

@maelle maelle commented May 8, 2019

The footer is useful in GitHub READMEs but it is also redundant in docs website, see e.g. https://docs.ropensci.org/ropenaq/

Once Jeroen's docs project is mature, do we want to keep requiring the README footer? @karthik

@noamross
Copy link
Contributor

@noamross noamross commented May 8, 2019

I think it would be fine to leave it off.

A note on this is that between moving to the ropensci repo and the rodocs site, the RO branding can overwhelm people's attempts to associate their package with themselves and their own organization's work. I, for instance, put an EcoHealth footer on READMEs in packages developed through work, and put the authors at the top of the README, and want to keep this after a package goes through peer-review.

@maelle
Copy link
Member Author

@maelle maelle commented May 8, 2019

But it's fine to have that footer + the rotemplate style, right? You could also add EcoHealth Alliance as author with a logo, is it fine or would you need more?

@noamross
Copy link
Contributor

@noamross noamross commented May 8, 2019

Yes, I think that's fine. If I think of some other option it would be good to have I'll open an issue in rotemplate.

@maelle
Copy link
Member Author

@maelle maelle commented May 15, 2019

Opinions @karthik @sckott?

@sckott
Copy link

@sckott sckott commented May 15, 2019

dont' have a strong feeling on it

@maelle
Copy link
Member Author

@maelle maelle commented Dec 11, 2019

Re-upping this, @jeroen now adds the same footer as for the website for pkgdown websites so the footer is redundant.

In READMEs one could argue that there's the peer-review badge at the top.

Related (would become useless) ropensci-archive/roweb2#451

@jeroen
Copy link
Member

@jeroen jeroen commented Dec 11, 2019

I think we could drop the banner, and instead ask to add https://docs.ropensci.org/${pkg} to the package description file and the github repo "homepage" (the url at the top of the github repo page next to the description).

@maelle
Copy link
Member Author

@maelle maelle commented Dec 11, 2019

btw in GitHub docs I was unable to find docs for that field! The best link I could come up with is https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7757751/how-do-you-change-a-repository-description-on-github

@maelle
Copy link
Member Author

@maelle maelle commented Dec 11, 2019

Any objection to dropping the banner/footer image @noamross @sckott @karthik?

@noamross
Copy link
Contributor

@noamross noamross commented Dec 11, 2019

Agreed, I think we should drop it.

@jeroen
Copy link
Member

@jeroen jeroen commented Dec 11, 2019

@maelle in the github api the field is called the repo "homepage": https://developer.github.com/v3/repos/

@maelle
Copy link
Member Author

@maelle maelle commented Dec 11, 2019

@jeroen I know, but when you edit it it's called website. 😢 And I don't see it e.g. in https://help.github.com/en/github/administering-a-repository

@maelle
Copy link
Member Author

@maelle maelle commented Jan 22, 2020

@karthik fine if we stop requiring the footer?

@karthik
Copy link
Member

@karthik karthik commented Feb 5, 2020

Yes I don't really care if it stays or goes.

@maelle
Copy link
Member Author

@maelle maelle commented Feb 6, 2020

cf also ropensci-archive/rodev@a4c5abe

@maelle maelle closed this as completed Feb 6, 2020
Bisaloo added a commit to ropensci/lightr that referenced this issue Apr 3, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants