-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.7k
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
chore: modify readme about how we want people to acquire Blockly #7661
Conversation
|
||
If you need more flexibility, you'll want to define your imports more carefully: | ||
### unpkg |
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.
Would it not be better to put this after the npm
section—or even omit it entirely?
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 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.
Two questions:
-
Is it necessary to provide these instructions in
package.json
? Could we not just refer people to devsite? Or is the idea to have old versions of the NPM package have instructions that are correct for those versions? -
Could we not eliminate
scripts/package/README.md
by combining it with the top-levelREADME.md
? It's great that you're updating it here but I get the impression it is often overlooked and left with out-of-date instructions. That's slightly less likely to happen with the top-levelREADME.md
, and certainly having only one copy seems otherwise preferable.
I think most folks provide basic usage instructions with their package. It seems like a more use-friendly experience if they can at least load the code from the info on the readme. But pointing to devsite would be more maintainble, so I wouldn't mind just including al ink and no instructions.
The root-level readme talks a lot about our release cycle and things like that. I don't think it makes sense to include that here, but can be nice for people that want to contribute to the project. I would rather just add a link to devsite than include info in the top-level readme. |
I agree that it makes sense to keep this readme separate from the top-level one, however:
So given the above, I think we should either:
Thoughts? |
Also meta question: Are we not recommending people use |
This PR updates things to match the new get the code page (cl/577317152). I'll add a comment to tell people to update this when they update that.
I'm not recommending that because it doesn't work great "batteries included" anymore since we changed how the javascript generators are exported. I think it's clearer to just tell people to import all of the things they need individually. |
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 tend to agree that it would be better just to point to devsite (for maintenance reasons) but otherwise this looks fine.
The basics
The details
Resolves
Fixes #7624
Proposed Changes
Modifies the README to hopefully be correct about how we want people to import things.
Reason for Changes
Getting our code is important.
Test Coverage
No functional changes!
Documentation
This is documentation silly!
Additional Information
N/A