Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Feb 12, 2024. It is now read-only.

Update RELEASE_ISSUE_TEMPLATE.md #2441

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 13, 2019
Merged

Update RELEASE_ISSUE_TEMPLATE.md #2441

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions doc/RELEASE_ISSUE_TEMPLATE.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -61,6 +61,9 @@
- [ ] **Stage 3 - Community Prod Testing**
- [ ] Documentation
- [ ] Ensure that [README.md](https://github.com/ipfs/js-ipfs/tree/master/README.md) is up to date
- [ ] Install section
- [ ] API calls
- [ ] Packages Listing
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

API calls & packages listing can be automated, right?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Of course, as anything with computers :D. Automating API calls might throw you on the JSDocs hole though, beware #615

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 mean, beware as in might require some time, yet it is a noble effort nonetheless

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Are the package list & API call sections even that useful?

For a new beginner the API listing is totally overwhelming (the tutorial link is probably more useful) and for an old hand they'll go straight to the interface-core docs - maybe we could just link to it instead of having to keep all the links in sync?

Not sure what use the package listing is other than 'hey we've got loads of modules' and shout-outs to the lead maintainers.

Copy link
Member Author

@daviddias daviddias Sep 13, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For a new beginner the API listing is totally overwhelming (the tutorial link is probably more useful) and for an old hand they'll go straight to the interface-core docs - maybe we could just link to it instead of having to keep all the links in sync?

I honestly feel the same myself. I think the old API description in the README was less verbose and easier to parse. That said, the README was updated to this state by the docs effort of 2018 upon User Research. That said x2, I think it is time for our new @ipfs/docs team to assess its usefulness and adjust if necessary.

Not sure what use the package listing is other than 'hey we've got loads of modules' and shout-outs to the lead maintainers.

Yes, it is useful:

  • Here are the other repos that you might want to consider checking if you are interested in js-ipfs (vs. checking the 300 total repos)
  • Look, we are putting hard work on testing, coverage and so on. You can check all of them in one place.
  • Thanks to our awesome lead maintainers for putting the effort to make this happen.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Are the package list & API call sections even that useful?

A good question for our stellar @ipfs/docs team! :)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe we should break the readme down into files in the /doc directory? Might make it a bit easier to comprehend?

It'd be good for the @ipfs/docs team to take a look at it at any rate. I think @ericronne and @terichadbourne are missing from that team.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It'd be good for the @ipfs/docs team to take a look at it at any rate. I think @ericronne and @terichadbourne are missing from that team.

They are all there https://github.com/orgs/ipfs/teams/docs/members

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In either way, this PR is about updating the release check list to ensure that the things that we currently make available to the user are indeed up to date. I think that should be an easy thing to agree :)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

They are all there

Ah yeah, they just weren't shown on the list on the left when you click the link to the.. nevermind...

- [ ] Ensure that all the examples run without problems:
- [ ] https://github.com/ipfs/js-ipfs/tree/master/examples/browser-add-readable-stream
- [ ] https://github.com/ipfs/js-ipfs/tree/master/examples/browser-browserify
Expand Down