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 some contributing notes and a style guide #183

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 24, 2025
Merged

Conversation

david-martin
Copy link
Member

Closes Kuadrant/kuadrant-operator#1118

The style guide content is a combination of some conversations on a different channel and some of the guidelines from https://kubernetes.io/docs/contribute/style/style-guide/

Copy link

netlify bot commented Jan 17, 2025

Deploy Preview for graceful-kangaroo-3c9c10 ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 88719de
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/graceful-kangaroo-3c9c10/deploys/678f97a359259a00082ef079
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-183--graceful-kangaroo-3c9c10.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

@david-martin david-martin changed the title Add a some contributing notes and a style guide Add some contributing notes and a style guide Jan 17, 2025
Comment on lines +95 to +97
## Numbering in lists

Avoid the overuse of numbering. It allows for docs to be updated much easier in the future.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this only for the limitation of markdown. If it is more useful to have the sections number for the user, is it worth looking at restructuredtext (rst). In the rst adding .. sectnum :: to the top of the file will manage the numbering for all sections.

The main question what is best for the user, not what is easier for us.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

what is best for the user, not what is easier for us

Absolutely.
Switching from markdown is a non runner though as we're using mkdocs.

I'm only aware of 2 docs that used section numbering

Both have been replaced by a non platform specific guide that doesn't have section numbering: https://docs.kuadrant.io/dev/kuadrant-operator/doc/user-guides/full-walkthrough/secure-protect-connect/

Perhaps that was the inspiration for this point?

Anyways, I think the wording on the guideline here is sufficient to make the writer question numbering, but not saying to not do it outright.
As with a lot of documentation, there can be element of subjective review, and whether or not something is overused can be argued. If something adds sufficient value, I don't see why it would be rejected.

Copy link
Member

@jasonmadigan jasonmadigan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

looks fine to me

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
style_guide.md Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Jan 20, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: david-martin, jasonmadigan

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
  • OWNERS [david-martin,jasonmadigan]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

Signed-off-by: David Martin <[email protected]>
style_guide.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
style_guide.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Thomas Maas <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Martin <[email protected]>
@jasonmadigan
Copy link
Member

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Jan 24, 2025
@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 41afd67 into main Jan 24, 2025
9 checks passed
@jasonmadigan jasonmadigan deleted the style-guide branch January 24, 2025 09:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Update README on how to contribute to the Docs
4 participants