-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
Move Charter, process, contributing and other docs to this rep #200
Comments
There is a piece in #170 which suggests doing this. I am in favor. Does OpenJSF have any guidance here? We could create a repo called The biggest downside I see is that governance changes will be a bit more opaque, as the PRs and diffs won't live in the express repo. I don't think that's a serious issue, as changing governance is not the same as changing licenses in terms of requiring visibility to consumers. I suggest using/repurposing this repo simply to cut down on the overall number of repos to track For reference, we currently have these markdown docs in the root dir of express repo:
What wes has suggested would be to keep a subset of the above docs in Express (certainly History.md isn't going anywhere) and link out to the source available docs in another repo (Charter, Triager-Guide, Readme-Guide are all non-express specific IMO and are candidates to just being linked to). |
yes this would be great, but I would even suggest to create a dedicated repos for that (not sure about the name but discussion seems strange) |
I think the thing is moving it out of repos we ship libraries out of, so I am not opposed to a new repo but also since we have this one I also don't see a reason not to use this one. EDIT: so I guess that is to say, whoever has strong opinions on if it is here or a new repo go for it! |
I was thinking of a more "admin" repo, I just created it for some PR about official records and decision (which also could be used to keep track of all minutes for the express TC meeting - and maybe all working groups). |
Ok, so lets call that decided then and we are going to move all the governence and policy docs there. We likely need to keep some files in place to link from all the repos, but by removing the content we can reduce churn in all the repos for these kinds of changes. |
My 2 cents on the linting matter. I find quite solid the linting workflow for markdown in place in the TODO Group as also reviews expressions and non-inclusive language: https://github.com/todogroup/ospology/tree/main/.github/workflows |
Since wes said this we have realized we already have a Im up for it. If we do we need to decide if we want to delete the actual files like CONTRIBUTING.md from the other repos so the "defaults" commited to the The specific files which are eligible to be used as defaults this way in github are listed in their docs Im still in favor of having a single meta repo tbh, which would be merging discussions, .github, and admin all into one repo (which would have to be named Does anyone have a compelling reason to have more than one non-source-code repo currently? |
Ah yeah I wasn't thinking about the shared thing with .github when discussing this. This is why I wish we had waited to create the new repo so we could gather this kind of feedback. The more I think about this the more I think the docs go in .github and the admin stuff goes in discussions. Idk, just important to keep things simple and have low duplication. |
I guess I didn't address the compelling reason to have more than one, I think the history in this discussions repo is the compelling reason. We don't want to make a new one because we don't want people to have to search multiple for convos. If we're going to do a different name that is all right, but we should move this repo not create a new one. |
I introduced a third option about merging the Do we want to have separate repos for
|
It has been several months since the last comment on this topic, and I would like to know if there is already consensus on this matter or if it hasn't been discussed in depth yet. Part of my question is because these files are blocking expressjs/express#6087. |
Good call adding to the agenda. We have been discussing some changes to this in the TC group, so we should for sure consolidate. There maybe be some outcomes as well from it for the content. We should make this a priority on the next meeting. |
I think we can move all this documentation to this repository, and with a script like the one we have on the website in the This repository is very frequently visited, so separating the information into |
Both expressjs/express#5509 and expressjs/express#5510 are great examples of why I think we should move this out of the express repo. We shouldn't need to run CI for these
.md
file changes. Also, it would be nice to add some markdown linting type stuff and keeping that out of this repo would be great. And thirdly, it would mean we don't have as many changes going into the autogenerated change logs for the main package.Thoughts?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: