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

add CONTRIBUTING.md and COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md #1981

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

alubbe
Copy link
Member

@alubbe alubbe commented Jun 6, 2015

Here is my suggestion as to what our policies could look like. They have been heavily influenced by io.js https://github.com/nodejs/io.js/blob/master/COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md and https://github.com/nodejs/io.js/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md. I expanded them with @ForbesLindesay comments: #1951 (comment) and #1956 (comment)

Differences (very much open to discussion):

  • Asking for feedback to the changelog via an issue
  • Raising the feedback cycle from 24 to 48h and 72h over weekends

That should be all - looking forward to some feedback!

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
# jade Collaborator Guide
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can it be in CONTRIBUTING.md as well? It's not a great idea to have a bunch of UPPERCASE files in the root of the project.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm indifferent. I assume io.js did this to keep the files shorter.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Well there is a talk in io.js about moving those files into separate directory (or a separate repository even). Relevant discussion is here: nodejs/node#12

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wonder if we should move the collaborator guide somewhere else entirely (perhaps a page on the website) and then just point new collaborators at this guide, since it's not relevant to most contributors.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I prefer having it in the repo because it increases its visibility. For example, when other devs evaluate using jade, they can see our process - and hopefully they like what they see ;)
We could always extract it into static site at a later point in time.
@rlidwka would you be ok with leaving it in a separate file for now?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

would you be ok with leaving it in a separate file for now?

yes, it doesn't matter that much

@ForbesLindesay
Copy link
Member

This all looks like a great start. One thing I'm slightly wary of is that a lot of this will change with the 2.0.0 release, because features will be split across multiple repositories.

@alubbe
Copy link
Member Author

alubbe commented Jun 18, 2015

I will work in the feedback in the coming days.
@ForbesLindesay let's land the PR before 2.0.0 - it's bigger than the release process.
I'll open a second PR afterwards where we can introduce how to release the new jade and where to open PRs for what features.

@alubbe
Copy link
Member Author

alubbe commented Jun 18, 2015

Okay, so here is round 2 of the proposal - let me know what you think.

@rollingversions
Copy link

rollingversions bot commented May 2, 2020

There is no change log for this pull request yet.

Create a changelog

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants