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

doc: improve onboarding extras formatting #6548

Merged

Conversation

Fishrock123
Copy link
Contributor

Checklist
  • documentation is changed or added
  • the commit message follows commit guidelines
Affected core subsystem(s)

doc,meta

Description of change

Fixes some formatting, improves some formatting, updates minor nits.

I guess we should at some point do a call for who wants to be on the chart.

@Fishrock123 Fishrock123 added the meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project. label May 3, 2016
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. label May 3, 2016
@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented May 3, 2016

Two stray commits in here?

| `test/*` | @nodejs/testing, @trott |
| `tools/eslint`, `.eslintrc` | @silverwind, @trott |
| upgrading v8 | @bnoordhuis, @targos, @ofrobots |
| upgrading npm | @thealphanerd, @fishrock123 |
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would much prefer to make these all team references and begin moving away from specific individuals. Doing so has worked effectively for things like lts, documentation, streams, http, and crypto. For instance, I've created a @nodejs/buffer team as an example.

The downside to mentioning specific individuals is that it creates a disincentive for new collaborators to feel empowered to jump in and help with the reviews and puts too much emphasis and burden on specific individuals.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For some areas, yes.

For other parts of core, I think this is still correct until the knowledge becomes more distilled and distributed as more people learn the codebase, and while that is something we should work towards it doesn't necessarily reflect reality.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Having those teams be initially made up of the people listed here would meet the same objective, no?

Also, this should also list:

  • doc - @nodejs/documentation
  • anything LTS - @nodejs/lts

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@jasnell Will add those, could you come up with a better LTS description?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I like the team approach, but do also see your pov @Fishrock123. I think we should definitely try to move towards having a team for each subsystem eventually.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You can remove my name from testing as I'm on nodejs/testing and that's what people should be using IMO.

@Fishrock123
Copy link
Contributor Author

No, but I did have a stray commit in master which is why the base is now incorrect here, fixing.

@Fishrock123 Fishrock123 force-pushed the doc/improve-onboarding-extras branch 2 times, most recently from f50d7b8 to 0111f0f Compare May 3, 2016 18:36
@Fishrock123
Copy link
Contributor Author

This was mostly to fix the formatting.. can we land this and then PR any additions after?

I'm accepting, and had already previously accepted the list was not complete and we should probably get the collaborators to to fill it out more. It's designed to be a baseline guide for those new to the project to be able to CC at least some people. :)

Also, perhaps it should be in one of the other documents, I'm not quite sure!

@evanlucas
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented May 4, 2016

No objections, just want to make sure it's not left undone.

@Fishrock123 Fishrock123 force-pushed the doc/improve-onboarding-extras branch from 0111f0f to f643e94 Compare May 9, 2016 15:32
@Fishrock123
Copy link
Contributor Author

fffff this has that stupid qs module readme change in it somehow again ugh

@Fishrock123
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jasnell lgty?

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented May 9, 2016

Looks fine.

@benjamingr
Copy link
Member

LGTM

Fixes some formatting, improves some formatting, updates minor nits.

Refs: nodejs#6655
PR-URL: nodejs#6548
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
@Fishrock123 Fishrock123 force-pushed the doc/improve-onboarding-extras branch from 02a2926 to 2fee506 Compare May 9, 2016 17:24
@Fishrock123 Fishrock123 merged commit 2fee506 into nodejs:master May 9, 2016
@Fishrock123 Fishrock123 deleted the doc/improve-onboarding-extras branch May 9, 2016 17:25
@mscdex
Copy link
Contributor

mscdex commented May 9, 2016

FWIW explicitly mentioning me for lib/_http* isn't necessary since I am already in the @nodejs/http team.

evanlucas pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 17, 2016
Fixes some formatting, improves some formatting, updates minor nits.

Refs: #6655
PR-URL: #6548
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 2, 2016
Fixes some formatting, improves some formatting, updates minor nits.

Refs: #6655
PR-URL: #6548
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 2, 2016
Fixes some formatting, improves some formatting, updates minor nits.

Refs: #6655
PR-URL: #6548
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
@MylesBorins MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Jun 24, 2016
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 24, 2016
Fixes some formatting, improves some formatting, updates minor nits.

Refs: #6655
PR-URL: #6548
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 24, 2016
Fixes some formatting, improves some formatting, updates minor nits.

Refs: #6655
PR-URL: #6548
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <evanlucas@me.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjamingr@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants