83 setup script

[ColmBhandal]

Setup Script again, from a fork.

[ColmBhandal]

• [ ] Await review from one other person before merging

[ru-fu]

For the standalone doc repo scenario, some very useful commands to send the changes to the upstream repository were also removed.

Good catch, I missed that this part was removed. Let's keep it!

[ColmBhandal]

standalone doc repo scenario, some very useful commands to send the changes to the upstream repository were also removed. For one thing, you need to initialise the repository after removing the .git directory. If you are going to continue with the shell script, I would really like these commands (and comment to configure and builld in CAP

For the standalone doc repo scenario, some very useful commands to send the changes to the upstream repository were also removed.

Good catch, I missed that this part was removed. Let's keep it!

@pmatulis and @ru-fu I did think about this part actually. In the prerequisites, we require a GitHub repo. I've updated this to specify it should be cloned locally. This is enough. Once somebody has a repo, they just need to run the script.

[ColmBhandal]

Comments added.

If it has not already been done, I would ask that both scenarios (standalone and integrated) be tested prior to landing this change. This means following the entire procedure to the letter (including successfully committing changes to the upstream repository).

It's a fair request. Once all changes are approved, I can test this on:

1. Standalone (empty repo, local to my machine with git init)
2. Existing docs repo (I'll just find someone using old version of starter pack and fork that)
3. Integrated but new (I can create a local repo on my machine)

In all three cases, the test would be to follow the instructions, confirm there's nothing weird in the diff before committing, commit, then make install / make run and confirm docs render correctly.

[ru-fu]

Trying to unblock this PR ...

I suggest to keep the instructions for starting out by manually cloning the starter pack in a separate, optional section. Let's recommend to use the script but also have instructions for "if you want to do it manually". We can then do a user survey later to see what people are actually doing.

[ColmBhandal]

Trying to unblock this PR ...

I suggest to keep the instructions for starting out by manually cloning the starter pack in a separate, optional section. Let's recommend to use the script but also have instructions for "if you want to do it manually". We can then do a user survey later to see what people are actually doing.

I went one step further - keep the instructions as they are, and release this as a beta feature for now. This removes the barrier of perfection and allows people to use the script with caution, if they like.

[ColmBhandal]

Hey @pmatulis I addressed the changes you requested. One of which looked good but was flagged out of scope by me and Ruth. How is it looking to you now?

[pmatulis]

@ColmBhandal Looks good but there is a linkcheck failure.

[ru-fu]

@ColmBhandal Looks good but there is a linkcheck failure.

That one is expected - it's linking to the online version of the page that we're adding in this PR.

[ColmBhandal]

@ColmBhandal Looks good but there is a linkcheck failure.

That one is expected - it's linking to the online version of the page that we're adding in this PR.

Yep- you can see the reasoning in this earlier comment.

@pmatulis Just waiting on your approval and will merge this then.

[pmatulis]

Thank you @ColmBhandal for the work you put into this one

[ru-fu]

@ColmBhandal Can you add this to the change log?