-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 315
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
Add development docs #2742
Add development docs #2742
Conversation
I think moving the content of the docs closer to the code is definitely the way to go - it will allows us to ensure correctness as the development progresses. I am not sure however, that we need to build and host the docs from this repo - perhaps we could simply check out the |
tags
Outdated
v2.5.0.beta2 | ||
v2.5.0.beta3 | ||
v2.5.1.beta1 | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Unclear what this file is for, but I suppose we should trash it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oops, yes, that was a git add .
mistake!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(now removed)
The submodule idea is an interesting one, but then blocks this project on the markdown rewrite -- which is precisely the blockage I'm trying to avoid. It also depends on the deployment frequency of tw.org, which would have to be frequent or somehow triggered on a commit to this repository. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
General comments:
- Keep design/developer documents as simple Markdown files
- Format "one sentence, one line" (leave linebreaks to the Markdown renderer)
- Rename
_index.md
toREADME.md
or<folder-name>.md
or remove - Move images to common directory?
|
||
# Building the Stable Version | ||
|
||
The master always represents the more recently released version, and should be |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
master
has become stable
|
||
# Building the Dev Branch | ||
|
||
The dev branch is always the highest numbered branch, in this example, `2.6.0`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There are no more version branches, only develop
for development
$ ./problems # Find errors in all.log | ||
|
||
|
||
# Submitting a Patch |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should be changed to pull-requests
docs/contrib/coding_style.md
Outdated
- No cuddled braces | ||
- Class names are capitalized, variable names are not | ||
|
||
We target Python 2.7 so that our test suite runs on the broadest set of |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Guess that is Python 3 now...
Maybe state even at least Python 3.9 (according to https://python-release-cycle.glitch.me/)
docs/rfcs/_index.md
Outdated
title: "Taskwarrior - What's next?" | ||
--- | ||
|
||
# Design |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Add documents present in this directory, remove empty sections
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oops, I should have deleted this (fixed)
docs/contrib/branching.md
Outdated
title: Branching Model | ||
--- | ||
|
||
Software development typically requires a standardized branching model, to |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This document is somehow too general (mentioning 'hidden' topic branches on the developer's machine), also there is some overlap with other documents (build.md
, development.md
)
docs/contrib/first_time.md
Outdated
title: How to become an Open Source Contributor | ||
--- | ||
|
||
Welcome, potential new Open Source contributor! This is a guide to show you |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In general this document needs to be adapted to the new branching model (only stable
/develop
branches)
docs/rfcs/task.md
Outdated
|
||
Here are the standard attributes that may comprise a task: | ||
|
||
<table> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reformat to Markdown table?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I did a few of these, where the Markdown table could reasonably replicate the HTML.
But on some of the never-finished RFCs with complicated tables it just wasn't worth the effort, so I left the tables as-is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(in the end this was just the "plans" RFC, which is from 2016 and maybe should just be rm -rf'd?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Deleting plans.md
if it is outdated is fine with me. But as I am not directly involved in Taskwarrior development, I would delegate the final decision to @tbabej 😃
Thanks for the review!
I'm not sure what you mean here. All of the docs files added in this PR are Markdown.
Sounds good -- I'll make that change and push it shortly.
This doesn't work with Jekyll. Would you prefer to not use GitHub pages?
If you hadn't included To the more editorial comments above: As I mentioned in the PR description, the plan here was to just get the docs moved -- it needs lots of work after that! I'd like to avoid doing so in this PR for a few reasons:
I mentioned a few follow-ups in the PR description, and you've identified a few points included in the first ("contributing docs are repetitive and outdated") which I'd like to defer to that point. |
Hi @djmitche
I would prefer to keep the developer documentation as simple and un-fancy as possible, i.e. just Markdown documents only, no web hosting. This would keep the Taskwarrior repository free of any 'side use' ( = hosting a web site). The Markdown documents can be linked, and IMHO browsing them on GitHub (like any other code file) is not that bad/cumbersome that it would require more CSS/etc. to increase user experience. However, this is my personal, "what I would do if Taskwarrior was my main project" opinion, so feel free to override it if you see benefits from any other decision... 😉
Fair point. There are not may images, so I am fine with this decision.
I definitely agree with that. Progressing in small steps is better than working on that big one forever. |
|
||
- Help [triage](/docs/triage) the issues list. | ||
|
||
- Join the IRC channel \#taskwarrior on freenode.net and help answer some questions. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
freenode is dead, long live libera.chat (👉🏻 https://web.libera.chat/#taskwarrior)
|
||
- Join the IRC channel \#taskwarrior on freenode.net and help answer some questions. | ||
|
||
- Join either the [developer-mailinglist](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/taskwarrior-dev) or [user-mailinglist](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/taskwarrior-user) (or both) and participate. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@tbabej I guess we should close down these and direct to our Discord (👉🏻 https://discord.gg/eRXEHk8w62) here...
Also, the main README mentiones Reddit, Twitter, and GitHub Discussions. Don't know, whether those are worth mentioning here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm usually in the irc channel on libera.chat and I know there are several others I've seen / talked to there and which lurk or send a message, sometimes with days latency but responses occur mostly. I don't know much about the discord population, but we could keep mention of both irc and discord
docs/rfcs/task.md
Outdated
|
||
Here are the standard attributes that may comprise a task: | ||
|
||
<table> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Deleting plans.md
if it is outdated is fine with me. But as I am not directly involved in Taskwarrior development, I would delegate the final decision to @tbabej 😃
I'll leave the call on GitHub Pages to @tbabej then. I agree it's not critical, and linking to GitHub /blob/ renderings is adequate. If we choose to not use GitHub pages then I'll rename to README.md and verify that all of the links work. |
IMHO this is a great step forward to what we have right now, which is an absence of the development docs in this repo, hopefully enabling us to keep the docs more in sync with the changes. In the future I'd like to make the website repo use this as an authoritative source, but that's future work. Thanks @lauft for all the suggestions 🙂 |
@tbabej did you want to set up github pages for this? Or, should I make a PR to rename indexes to README.md? Or just leave it as-is? |
Yep, I'll setup github pages in the interim, right now I am trying to figure out the security audit permissions problem 🤔 |
Awesome. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/70435286/resource-not-accessible-by-integration-on-github-post-repos-owner-repo-ac looks like it may be relevant there. Don't spend too long on it -- feel free to assign an issue to me instead if you'd prefer. I had hoped that merging some dependabot PRs would magically "fix" it but that's not realistic :) |
This moves some development-related documentation into the repo, where it can be more easily co-versioned with the source.
It currently uses Jekyll via GitHub pages. You can see the result here. The theming could certainly be better, but I'm mostly focused on content right now. And, we could certainly move to use Hugo if y'all would prefer, but again: focused on content.
This just gets the docs in here. There's lots to be done, and I'll file issues for them if this gets merged:
Fixes #2741.